What fond memories of Thanksgiving - how can one not be thankful for having the charmed lives we lead ?
I am with you all in spirit, and I wish I could break bread with you as well...
Interesting article in the Times today (titled "A French Connection", how can I resist...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/opinion/26davis.html
Love to you all, say hello to Grandma for me.
Jeffrey
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Overdue response to Jeff
Jeff,
Great picture- sounds like everyone had a good visit.
Monica already gave some answer to your questions, but I would like to add a bit of my own perspective.
The most thought-provoking to me was the question about pre-birth baptism, because it was something I had never considered before. Coming at it from a pure-reason standpoint, here's what I think: The purposes of Baptism are two-fold- the child is both born again into God's kingdom and welcomed as a contributing member of Christ's body on earth, the Church. Logistically, it is hard to be a contributing member when one hasn't been born yet! But, spiritually, I believe the child is already a member. In fact, I would say that an unborn child is closer to God than any of us are, having just been created, i.e, having just been with the Creator. This might start to sound a little hokey, but many believe that children are more aware of the presence of angels, whether from their comparitve innocence or from not having blocked such possibilities from their minds by worldly reason. (In Scripture, we are told that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice.) In any case, a child floating in his mother's womb with nothing but her heartbeat and the recent memory of God's loving gift of life to keep him company knows nothing but life, and so knows God very well, indeed, without having been baptized.
I think Monica presented the case for the soul being born when life begins at conception, so I won't add to that. I do believe this, not only because I believe the logic to be sound, but also because in areas that it is hard to understand with the limitations of human perception I find it helpful to trust the words of those with better prayer lives than me. For the sake of argument, though, let me back-track slightly and say: even if you cannot 100% prove that life begins at conception, can you say with 100% certainty that it does not? I do not think anyone can claim to KNOW that it does not. Supposing that Christians are wrong and that human life begins at, say, the first breath of air, the price of our error will have been the emotional trauma, social ostracization, and yes, occasional death, that accompanies unwanted pregnancies. I do not take these things lightly. However, they pale in comparison to the price of the error of supporting abortions if life does, in fact, start at conception. 48 million lives is more than the estimated 47 million civilian deaths in WWII- and the number of abortions is still growing. From a "utilitarian" perspective, if you cannot say with 100% certainty either way, would it not be best to play it safe?
As for the Church's view on artificial insemination, my understanding is that fertility methods are not discouraged as long as they handle life responsibly. My lay understanding is that in many methods they intentionally overshoot the number of eggs they need to fertilize to increase the odds that one "takes". The extras are then left to die in test tubes or, once inside the mother, aborted. So, what may seem like a beautiful development at first glance can actually be quite dark upon further inspection- one life coming at the cost of ten. If the 48 million aborted were allowed to live, thus making adoption more available, infertility would not be as traumatic as it is now.
In the Church's eyes, the goal is not rampant promulgation of the species, believe it or not. With regards to life, the Church hopes to treat every life that God has created with respect and dignity. It is true that Christian families are often larger because of our understanding of sexuality, but with regards to abortion issues, it is not in our agenda to push this understanding of sexuality onto unbelievers. The "get your rosaries off my ovaries" slogan highlights the misunderstanding- I really could care less about her ovaries; it's the life that they have produced and she is threatening that forces me to act.
As for forced baptism, I don't think there is anyone in this family who would say that's a good idea. For one thing, it's hard to imagine this happening without it being militant. Although the past is pocked with shameful aberrations, at her purest the Church never promotes violence. Also, I see respect for the differing conclusions that non-believers reach as part of the respect for life. It is a Christian's duty to make the Word available to as many people as possible, but never to force the Word upon someone. Monica's reference to the catechism help explain how this does not exile people who earnestly seek God outside of the Church.
It is well past my bed-time, so I will stop there. A few of your questions are left unanswered, Jeff. It's a large can of worms you opened!
Great picture- sounds like everyone had a good visit.
Monica already gave some answer to your questions, but I would like to add a bit of my own perspective.
The most thought-provoking to me was the question about pre-birth baptism, because it was something I had never considered before. Coming at it from a pure-reason standpoint, here's what I think: The purposes of Baptism are two-fold- the child is both born again into God's kingdom and welcomed as a contributing member of Christ's body on earth, the Church. Logistically, it is hard to be a contributing member when one hasn't been born yet! But, spiritually, I believe the child is already a member. In fact, I would say that an unborn child is closer to God than any of us are, having just been created, i.e, having just been with the Creator. This might start to sound a little hokey, but many believe that children are more aware of the presence of angels, whether from their comparitve innocence or from not having blocked such possibilities from their minds by worldly reason. (In Scripture, we are told that John leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice.) In any case, a child floating in his mother's womb with nothing but her heartbeat and the recent memory of God's loving gift of life to keep him company knows nothing but life, and so knows God very well, indeed, without having been baptized.
I think Monica presented the case for the soul being born when life begins at conception, so I won't add to that. I do believe this, not only because I believe the logic to be sound, but also because in areas that it is hard to understand with the limitations of human perception I find it helpful to trust the words of those with better prayer lives than me. For the sake of argument, though, let me back-track slightly and say: even if you cannot 100% prove that life begins at conception, can you say with 100% certainty that it does not? I do not think anyone can claim to KNOW that it does not. Supposing that Christians are wrong and that human life begins at, say, the first breath of air, the price of our error will have been the emotional trauma, social ostracization, and yes, occasional death, that accompanies unwanted pregnancies. I do not take these things lightly. However, they pale in comparison to the price of the error of supporting abortions if life does, in fact, start at conception. 48 million lives is more than the estimated 47 million civilian deaths in WWII- and the number of abortions is still growing. From a "utilitarian" perspective, if you cannot say with 100% certainty either way, would it not be best to play it safe?
As for the Church's view on artificial insemination, my understanding is that fertility methods are not discouraged as long as they handle life responsibly. My lay understanding is that in many methods they intentionally overshoot the number of eggs they need to fertilize to increase the odds that one "takes". The extras are then left to die in test tubes or, once inside the mother, aborted. So, what may seem like a beautiful development at first glance can actually be quite dark upon further inspection- one life coming at the cost of ten. If the 48 million aborted were allowed to live, thus making adoption more available, infertility would not be as traumatic as it is now.
In the Church's eyes, the goal is not rampant promulgation of the species, believe it or not. With regards to life, the Church hopes to treat every life that God has created with respect and dignity. It is true that Christian families are often larger because of our understanding of sexuality, but with regards to abortion issues, it is not in our agenda to push this understanding of sexuality onto unbelievers. The "get your rosaries off my ovaries" slogan highlights the misunderstanding- I really could care less about her ovaries; it's the life that they have produced and she is threatening that forces me to act.
As for forced baptism, I don't think there is anyone in this family who would say that's a good idea. For one thing, it's hard to imagine this happening without it being militant. Although the past is pocked with shameful aberrations, at her purest the Church never promotes violence. Also, I see respect for the differing conclusions that non-believers reach as part of the respect for life. It is a Christian's duty to make the Word available to as many people as possible, but never to force the Word upon someone. Monica's reference to the catechism help explain how this does not exile people who earnestly seek God outside of the Church.
It is well past my bed-time, so I will stop there. A few of your questions are left unanswered, Jeff. It's a large can of worms you opened!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Big Dog in town
My father arrived here today around 2pm. After a long flight (NY-Barcelona), and a long (3 hr, Barcelona-Marseillan) drive - I was expecting to see him in worse shape than he turned up in - he looks good and it's pure joy for me and my brood to have him here.
The kids were here when he got home - there was a teacher's strike today, and Constance's and Eleanore's teachers were on strike, so I didn't send Henri to school (partly an act of solidarity with the teachers who did strike, partly so he could spend an extra couple of hours with his Grandpa who is just on a short visit...
(to close out on the strike anecdote, the teachers are striking because of proposed budget cuts to the national education budget, notably budgets for children in difficulty)
Anyway, I was working from home and managing the three kids as best I could until Grandpa showed up to take care of them (the kids have the Wii, and other than fighting over which game to play, that occupies them pretty well so I can get my work done). "Uncle Doug" as most of you know him did take a little (well earned) nap towards the latter part of the afternoon, but then he took the kids into town (Constance needed a book from the book shop that was ordered by her French teacher). On top of getting the book, they came back with rillettes (kind of a porc paté, but I've never really had anything like it in the states), brie, a nice cantal - I think it was a cantal, it could be a tomme - (those are cheeses) and a couple of baguettes. We popped open a bottle of and ejoyed the start of our evening, until I started cooking that typically French meal - Moussaka. :-)
Either way, I'll try to post some pictures all that tomorrow.
The kids were here when he got home - there was a teacher's strike today, and Constance's and Eleanore's teachers were on strike, so I didn't send Henri to school (partly an act of solidarity with the teachers who did strike, partly so he could spend an extra couple of hours with his Grandpa who is just on a short visit...
(to close out on the strike anecdote, the teachers are striking because of proposed budget cuts to the national education budget, notably budgets for children in difficulty)
Anyway, I was working from home and managing the three kids as best I could until Grandpa showed up to take care of them (the kids have the Wii, and other than fighting over which game to play, that occupies them pretty well so I can get my work done). "Uncle Doug" as most of you know him did take a little (well earned) nap towards the latter part of the afternoon, but then he took the kids into town (Constance needed a book from the book shop that was ordered by her French teacher). On top of getting the book, they came back with rillettes (kind of a porc paté, but I've never really had anything like it in the states), brie, a nice cantal - I think it was a cantal, it could be a tomme - (those are cheeses) and a couple of baguettes. We popped open a bottle of and ejoyed the start of our evening, until I started cooking that typically French meal - Moussaka. :-)
Either way, I'll try to post some pictures all that tomorrow.
edit - here's a picture...
Jeffrey
Trees Falling
Jeff,
There's still life on Earth. I enjoyed the pictures- and got a good laugh from "it's okay to be politically incorrect in France." I didn't realize they trick-or-treated in France. Or do they not, and people were merely handling over candy because they felt bad for the poor children being paraded around by the man in blackface? Just kidding.
I would post a picture of Elizabeth and I (we are currently living together in Boston), but I doubt anyone would find it quite as cute.
As for the blog traffic, I'm afraid a large number of people couldn't make the technological leap. But, I still think it is a good thing to write on it as opposed to emails. I feel like people will only come to the blog when they are in a stable mindset, whereas emails might catch you at your worst moment. I think making it a conscious decision to come to the blog and participate in the discussion has to help keep things from getting out of hand.
I also plan on responding to your questions (you know, just to get the traffic flowing again). I am currently in the middle of both trying to find a job in NYC at the worst moment in job history and studying for my first architectural board, thus the delay. Sounds like a good weekend activity, though.
Glad to hear Melanie is doing better. The little guy looks great!
There's still life on Earth. I enjoyed the pictures- and got a good laugh from "it's okay to be politically incorrect in France." I didn't realize they trick-or-treated in France. Or do they not, and people were merely handling over candy because they felt bad for the poor children being paraded around by the man in blackface? Just kidding.
I would post a picture of Elizabeth and I (we are currently living together in Boston), but I doubt anyone would find it quite as cute.
As for the blog traffic, I'm afraid a large number of people couldn't make the technological leap. But, I still think it is a good thing to write on it as opposed to emails. I feel like people will only come to the blog when they are in a stable mindset, whereas emails might catch you at your worst moment. I think making it a conscious decision to come to the blog and participate in the discussion has to help keep things from getting out of hand.
I also plan on responding to your questions (you know, just to get the traffic flowing again). I am currently in the middle of both trying to find a job in NYC at the worst moment in job history and studying for my first architectural board, thus the delay. Sounds like a good weekend activity, though.
Glad to hear Melanie is doing better. The little guy looks great!
Infotainment
I guess there's not much traffic to this blog, except when a prairie fire of good natured controversy is blowing through the family over controversial topics like healthcare, Roe v Wade, the election, or some other hot button topic. A real microcosm of the cable news shows - partisianship sells, shock and awe sells, a family picture album - nice, but doesn't fan the flames.
I'll still post here from time to time, but if a tree falls in a forest.... I'm used to talking in a vacuum anyway :)
I'll still post here from time to time, but if a tree falls in a forest.... I'm used to talking in a vacuum anyway :)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Just to keep content fresh here
I have a dinner tonight with a VP of technology and engineering from the parent company that acquired my company in May. Apparently he's from Alabama, and according to people who have met him, he's a gun-totin, born-again, Palin-lovin kind of guy. I'm going to have to do my best to stay away from any political commentary. But we'll see how it goes...
At least it's a free meal :-)
At least it's a free meal :-)
Saturday, November 15, 2008
I'm enjoying this...and some photos of our family
I'm really enjoying the intellectual dialogue. One thing I want to point out--if I'm not mistaken--is that it's Kateri who wrote the first post of November, the political commentary. Monica joined thereafter. Jeff, Dad, Monica and Kateri, this is great stuff. I don't have much to contribute right now, but I really enjoy the read as well as the respectful tone of the communication. That's impressive considering the weight of the topics and the variety of viewpoints! Great to see.
Our love to Melanie, Rob and cutie Benjamin! We welcome the baby and are so happy that Melanie is on the mend. Of course, our hearts go out to them that they had such a difficult start. Athletic Mel will rise to the challenge! We wish her a speedy recovery.
Here are some recent photos.
Maryanne, Teresa, Mike; Peter and Joe; Mae, Max, Jerry. 10/11/08
Peter and Mae decorating pumpkins, 10/08.
Nana and Grandpa with Max on his 4th birthday, 10/11/08.
Teresa and Eleanor (Steve and Maura's oldest) at Halloween visit to Grandma Brown. 10/30/08.
clockwise from left: Jerry, Mae, Grandma B., Teresa, Maryanne, Joseph, Maura, Stephen, Ellie and Max. 10/30/08
Our love to Melanie, Rob and cutie Benjamin! We welcome the baby and are so happy that Melanie is on the mend. Of course, our hearts go out to them that they had such a difficult start. Athletic Mel will rise to the challenge! We wish her a speedy recovery.
Here are some recent photos.
Maryanne, Teresa, Mike; Peter and Joe; Mae, Max, Jerry. 10/11/08
Peter and Mae decorating pumpkins, 10/08.
Nana and Grandpa with Max on his 4th birthday, 10/11/08.
Teresa and Eleanor (Steve and Maura's oldest) at Halloween visit to Grandma Brown. 10/30/08.
clockwise from left: Jerry, Mae, Grandma B., Teresa, Maryanne, Joseph, Maura, Stephen, Ellie and Max. 10/30/08Answers to Jeff's first two questions
Hi all,
Here's a rushed, off the top of my head (with a little help from the Catechism) response to the first few questions Jeff posed. I am grateful to Jeff for the opportunity to help explain these tough questions, because they are questions that arise in the context of the class I teach at my Church for adults who are preparing to become Catholic. This is helpful training for the class on life issues that I'll give in a couple of weeks.
Jeff: If a mother loses her unborn fetus due to natural circumstances, can that fetus be baptized
No. The fetus is already dead so cannot be baptized, but this doesn’t mean the soul of this child is not with God in heaven. By your question and the one below, I take it that you have an antiquated (and widely held!) idea of the Church’s view of the role of Baptism in salvation, so I’m going to elaborate. The position on the possibility of salvation for all people, whether or not they have had the opportunity to hear the Good News of God coming into the world to save us, was clarified at the Second Vatican Council. I will quote you from the Vat. II documents on this, because I run into people all the time who reject Catholicism based on the injustice of the idea that heaven is closed to people living in remote regions of the Earth who’ve never met a Christian, children who die before Baptism, people like Gandhi, etc. In fact, the Church (at least the Pope and orthodox, informed, humble members) does not presume to know who will be and will not be saved.
The Magisterium (bet you love that word :-) declares:
“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.” Lumen Gentium, 16
In other words, Baptism is the only way we KNOW of to become capable of communing with God in heaven, but God is not limited by the Sacrament of Baptism. God can prepare souls for heaven any way God sees fit. However, this doesn’t suggest a relativistic idea that all paths are equally good or equally directed toward heaven. That is, all Christians must necessarily profess that EVERYONE who is saved is saved through the death and Resurrection of Jesus, whether or not he/she has had the gift of knowing Christ while on this Earth.
Jeff: If so, from which point after conception can that fetus be baptized? Does a fetus have a soul? Is that soul present at conception?
Only a child who is born can be baptized, but see the Catholic Catechism on the possibility of salvation for children who die unbaptized:
This answer is grossly simplified. I apologize if it is unclear. I am not a philosopher. I just take great interest in studying Church teaching, because I love the Church and I love my faith and I take to heart the command of St. Peter "Always be prepared to give reason for anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is within you." And hope is what I have ! :-)
No time now to answer the other questions, but they are intriguing, and I am happy to continue this discussion.
Love, Monica
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Browns in France...
At this time next week I'll have "the Big Dog" with me and my kids, you can imagine how much I'm looking forward to that. Since Uncle Ken asked how my little family is doing over here, let me say "great", and here's a picture of us going out to trick or treat. (One of Eleanore's friends came out with us, and Constance is hiding a little behind Henri).
I know it is considered to be in poor taste to go "black face", even more so with "ball and chains", but I couldn't resist juxtaposing what real change can happen in just 150 years (hence the Obama Tshirt)... And you're allowed to be politically incorrect in France...
And here's a picture of them from last week, at the beach in Grau D'Agde.
I'll bring more "commentary" from time to time, but I just wanted to share a couple of pictures, since Uncle Ken gave me a good excuse to do so...
Cheers to you all as you gear up for the holiday season.
Love,
Jeffrey
(edit) PS - I just learned that Constance finished first from her middle school and second overall (there were 7 middle schools and 50+ runners) in a 2KM cross-country race this afternoon. Anybody who has ever seen me run (or smoke a cigarette) knows that she doesn't get that talent from me.
I know it is considered to be in poor taste to go "black face", even more so with "ball and chains", but I couldn't resist juxtaposing what real change can happen in just 150 years (hence the Obama Tshirt)... And you're allowed to be politically incorrect in France...
And here's a picture of them from last week, at the beach in Grau D'Agde.
I'll bring more "commentary" from time to time, but I just wanted to share a couple of pictures, since Uncle Ken gave me a good excuse to do so...
Cheers to you all as you gear up for the holiday season.
Love,
Jeffrey
(edit) PS - I just learned that Constance finished first from her middle school and second overall (there were 7 middle schools and 50+ runners) in a 2KM cross-country race this afternoon. Anybody who has ever seen me run (or smoke a cigarette) knows that she doesn't get that talent from me.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
hi again
Hi again,
I'm just checking in to say that I haven't forgotten and want to answer the theology questions, but I also want to do them justice and I have been so behind in my work that I haven't had a chance to get to it yet. I know you are all waiting on the edge of your seats...
Congratulations to Melanie and Rob!
Happy Armistice Day/Remembrance Day/Veterans Day!
Love,
Monica
I'm just checking in to say that I haven't forgotten and want to answer the theology questions, but I also want to do them justice and I have been so behind in my work that I haven't had a chance to get to it yet. I know you are all waiting on the edge of your seats...
Congratulations to Melanie and Rob!
Happy Armistice Day/Remembrance Day/Veterans Day!
Love,
Monica
Priorities and perspectives
Jeff did very well to post picture of Benjamin. It serves to remind one of what is truly important. We banter and dialogue, have our fun and sometimes we are all guilty of trying to be clever, but scary and horrific happenings such as what Melanie and Rob (and the whole Brown clan) went through bring us back to earth and we end up being thankful for what we still have and that things weren't worse.
May I add that I was very moved by Jeff's humble (yes humble) and sincere posting about spirituality and faith. Know Jeff that you are held in high esteem by many and that we too enjoy your contributions and have not lost "faith' in you. BTW, how are your lovely children doing? I understand that Le big chien is to see you and them soon. Hope those plans can still go on. Love to all, U. Ken
May I add that I was very moved by Jeff's humble (yes humble) and sincere posting about spirituality and faith. Know Jeff that you are held in high esteem by many and that we too enjoy your contributions and have not lost "faith' in you. BTW, how are your lovely children doing? I understand that Le big chien is to see you and them soon. Hope those plans can still go on. Love to all, U. Ken
Monday, November 10, 2008
Benjamin Shea O'Keefe
(born 3:26 pm, Friday Nov 7th, 2008)Can't resist posting a picture of Melanie and Rob's beautiful baby boy !! You may have heard Mel had a bit of a rough go after labor, but is no longer in any danger... and she's now able to spend quality time with her beautiful bundle of joy.
Congratulations to Mel and Rob
Yep, it's me again !
Unkle Ken,
Thanks for getting your blog on with us.
I am guilty as charged on both of your accounts - trying to be too clever, and jaded towards organized religion.
My rejection of religion does not mean a rejection of God, or Jesus, or Christianity (or any other faith or belief system). I try to live my life, and raise my children, in the respect of all our fellow men, and the acceptance that we as individuals are part of something that is greater than any one of us. I consider myself to have spirituality. Often I envy those of you with true faith.
As far as me being too clever, (to address the issue of the “tipping point” of 48 million lives) - even to a heathen like me it seems obvious that there can be no tipping point of "righteousness by the numbers”. This is such a slippery slope, and you are right to throw it back in my face, (ever so respectfully, thank you).
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even the intention of right can’t erase something that is “wrong” done to accomplish a goal.
I hope you all have a nice week.
Peace and love to all
PS - Tomorrow, November 11th, is Armistice Day, I’ll have the day off as it is a holiday in France. It will mark the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I.
The War to end all Wars.
Lol
Thanks for getting your blog on with us.
I am guilty as charged on both of your accounts - trying to be too clever, and jaded towards organized religion.
My rejection of religion does not mean a rejection of God, or Jesus, or Christianity (or any other faith or belief system). I try to live my life, and raise my children, in the respect of all our fellow men, and the acceptance that we as individuals are part of something that is greater than any one of us. I consider myself to have spirituality. Often I envy those of you with true faith.
As far as me being too clever, (to address the issue of the “tipping point” of 48 million lives) - even to a heathen like me it seems obvious that there can be no tipping point of "righteousness by the numbers”. This is such a slippery slope, and you are right to throw it back in my face, (ever so respectfully, thank you).
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even the intention of right can’t erase something that is “wrong” done to accomplish a goal.
I hope you all have a nice week.
Peace and love to all
PS - Tomorrow, November 11th, is Armistice Day, I’ll have the day off as it is a holiday in France. It will mark the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I.
The War to end all Wars.
Lol
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Short answer to Jeff
First, may I say I am awed at the eloquence and the level of education that is being displayed in this blog by the "younger generation". But there is a but. Me thinks that sometimes the ability to be clever works against arriving at the truth. We can sometimes make rather simple things so complicated that we never do arrive at solutions, and the truth. I will now take issue with one of Jeff's erudite questions, that being essentially is there a tipping point whereby saving lives or creating them by modern technology somehow can offset the loss of say 48 million lives lost (in this question there seems to be an acceptance that the 48M were lives BTW). The answer Jeff is really not hard to find if one but accepts that there is a moral order that accepts the concepts of right and wrong. That discernment is not derived from taking a poll or counting numbers. Were we not all taught in our families that taking drugs was wrong, even if we were the only ones in the group not taking them? As to whether artificial insemination is thought wrong by the Church hierarchy, keep in mind that we believe that only defined articals of faith are infallible.
Another thing that you seem to think is that we believe the Culture of Life is paramount. I would suggest that it goes way beyond that. The truth is what matters the most, and , if I may, I bemoan the fact that you seem jaded about religion. Hopefully you do have a spirituality and recognize the existence of a power greater than we poor humans. As for me, I rejoice in believing fervantly in Jesus Christ as my God and saviour and in Him being the Way, the Truth and the Life. I do so recognizing as you point out so well that horrible things have been done and are still being done in the name oif religion--so stupid are we poor human beings. Love and peace to all. Uncle Ken
Another thing that you seem to think is that we believe the Culture of Life is paramount. I would suggest that it goes way beyond that. The truth is what matters the most, and , if I may, I bemoan the fact that you seem jaded about religion. Hopefully you do have a spirituality and recognize the existence of a power greater than we poor humans. As for me, I rejoice in believing fervantly in Jesus Christ as my God and saviour and in Him being the Way, the Truth and the Life. I do so recognizing as you point out so well that horrible things have been done and are still being done in the name oif religion--so stupid are we poor human beings. Love and peace to all. Uncle Ken
Friday, November 7, 2008
Clarification
Jeff,
I don't have time at the moment for a larger response, but I did want to clarify before anyone is whipped into a frenzy that the "compromised shell of a man" actually referred to McCain. The larger quote was a "compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide", referring to how I (and many people from what I have heard) respected McCain and his accomplishments more before he lost much of his credibility in cowing to the base. The "smooth talking radical" did mean Obama. My point was that America could have been- and should have been- represented better on both sides. Maybe it's the result of the two-party system, maybe it's the fact that only millionaires can run for president these days, maybe it's the unwillingness of good people to throw themselves into the pit- I really don't know. But, no kool-aid was consumed by this girl on either side this time around. I can best describe my voting attitude as looking for the lesser of two evils. (Not that I think either man is evil- I do believe they are both well-intentioned.)
See, this is how wordy I get in even short clarifications! That's why I'll leave it to Monica and her theology-know-how to respond to the questions. I can't rule out jumping back into the debate, though. If there's one common gene in the Brown family, it appears to be the impassioned letter-writing one!
-Kateri
I don't have time at the moment for a larger response, but I did want to clarify before anyone is whipped into a frenzy that the "compromised shell of a man" actually referred to McCain. The larger quote was a "compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide", referring to how I (and many people from what I have heard) respected McCain and his accomplishments more before he lost much of his credibility in cowing to the base. The "smooth talking radical" did mean Obama. My point was that America could have been- and should have been- represented better on both sides. Maybe it's the result of the two-party system, maybe it's the fact that only millionaires can run for president these days, maybe it's the unwillingness of good people to throw themselves into the pit- I really don't know. But, no kool-aid was consumed by this girl on either side this time around. I can best describe my voting attitude as looking for the lesser of two evils. (Not that I think either man is evil- I do believe they are both well-intentioned.)
See, this is how wordy I get in even short clarifications! That's why I'll leave it to Monica and her theology-know-how to respond to the questions. I can't rule out jumping back into the debate, though. If there's one common gene in the Brown family, it appears to be the impassioned letter-writing one!
-Kateri
Y'all have a nice weekend
Monica,
I regret that I didn’t point out the parts of your last blog post which make me reflect on your beliefs above and beyond the fact that we are family.
I really do appreciate the way you preface all of your arguments – and let me quote from your text – (I had started this writing as a personal email, but it deserves to be shared with all), I am far from ashamed of my appreciation of your rational presentation of your arguments, that is why I am encouraged to participate in this dialogue, or debate. No judgment, no judges, those who come with an open mind will recognize reason. I admit I do not have an "open mind" to change my mind, but I do not refute your strength of reason. (I do not have a closed mind either... think of it as a soft boiled egg...)
(and no, this is not your brain on drugs)
Your opening personal statement in your previous blog post starts with « By my standards ». When I read that, I knew that I could read the rest... It is a humble but confident opening. For most of my life I've only been able to acheive one of those two attitudes. And it is not the one that starts with H.
Most other statements in your post use the 1st person singular pronoun… you present things as your opinion, and give supporting facts or supporting opinions to support that position, you do not present your opinion as the only option of truth.
I acknowledge and applaud the fact that you may and do agree with President Bush on certain points, while at the same time stating that he is not automatically a “good president” for passing this bar of personal similarity on certain issues. I agree that you are entitled to a personal litmus test to determine if our current president is worthy of your support and admiration. I will not consider you unpatriotic if you cannot support Barack Obama because of positions he holds, any more than I consider myself unpatriotic for not supporting George W Bush for actions he and his administration have undertaken (and you write about some of those issues).
Although there are some statements in your post that for me seem to go overboard (kool-aid drinking levels of overboard) such as – “is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide”....I will admit to using the same “shock and awe" strategy to incite reflection from those who don’t share my opinion in my own post. It makes for good television. Or blog banter. Whatever.
I did also state that I don’t believe an anti Roe Vs Wade opinion is equivalent to support of Taliban or “charria” type attitudes (in order to distance myslef from kool-aid level rhetorical), but I HOPE you don’t believe that Barack Obama is a “radical and a compromised shell of a man” just because of his difference of opinion on Roe vs Wade…
I chose not to address your comments on federal funding of abortions, because I NEVER received any emails from the culture of life elements in our family, church, community, or our society at large about federal funding for cruise missiles bunker busters and other armory that have killed hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi civilians over that past five years. I therefore find your notion of “control of the checkbook” to be VERY morally compromised. (different debate, sorry, must be addressed when we agree on Roe vs Wade :d)
But I REALLY do not want to address the checkbook issue - because the $$$ questions are intimately linked to the “faith and politics” questions that I posted in my earlier email.
But I am REALLY very happy to interact with you, and anybody else on these matters. I do not want to change your opinions.
I mostly want to test my own “opinions”, and be able to separate the comfort kool-aid of following “my kind” of talking points from the ambrosia of understanding. And there are not many better forums for talking about his than with my uncles, aunts, cousins, and other family members that I love and respect.
Jeffrey
(just to let you know that I am not on my high horse of pseudo-intellectualism, I will admit that it is 4:57 pm on Friday afternoon, and by the time anybody reads this, I will be half way into my “two for one” Friday happy hour special.)
lol
I regret that I didn’t point out the parts of your last blog post which make me reflect on your beliefs above and beyond the fact that we are family.
I really do appreciate the way you preface all of your arguments – and let me quote from your text – (I had started this writing as a personal email, but it deserves to be shared with all), I am far from ashamed of my appreciation of your rational presentation of your arguments, that is why I am encouraged to participate in this dialogue, or debate. No judgment, no judges, those who come with an open mind will recognize reason. I admit I do not have an "open mind" to change my mind, but I do not refute your strength of reason. (I do not have a closed mind either... think of it as a soft boiled egg...)
(and no, this is not your brain on drugs)
Your opening personal statement in your previous blog post starts with « By my standards ». When I read that, I knew that I could read the rest... It is a humble but confident opening. For most of my life I've only been able to acheive one of those two attitudes. And it is not the one that starts with H.
Most other statements in your post use the 1st person singular pronoun… you present things as your opinion, and give supporting facts or supporting opinions to support that position, you do not present your opinion as the only option of truth.
I acknowledge and applaud the fact that you may and do agree with President Bush on certain points, while at the same time stating that he is not automatically a “good president” for passing this bar of personal similarity on certain issues. I agree that you are entitled to a personal litmus test to determine if our current president is worthy of your support and admiration. I will not consider you unpatriotic if you cannot support Barack Obama because of positions he holds, any more than I consider myself unpatriotic for not supporting George W Bush for actions he and his administration have undertaken (and you write about some of those issues).
Although there are some statements in your post that for me seem to go overboard (kool-aid drinking levels of overboard) such as – “is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide”....I will admit to using the same “shock and awe" strategy to incite reflection from those who don’t share my opinion in my own post. It makes for good television. Or blog banter. Whatever.
I did also state that I don’t believe an anti Roe Vs Wade opinion is equivalent to support of Taliban or “charria” type attitudes (in order to distance myslef from kool-aid level rhetorical), but I HOPE you don’t believe that Barack Obama is a “radical and a compromised shell of a man” just because of his difference of opinion on Roe vs Wade…
I chose not to address your comments on federal funding of abortions, because I NEVER received any emails from the culture of life elements in our family, church, community, or our society at large about federal funding for cruise missiles bunker busters and other armory that have killed hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi civilians over that past five years. I therefore find your notion of “control of the checkbook” to be VERY morally compromised. (different debate, sorry, must be addressed when we agree on Roe vs Wade :d)
But I REALLY do not want to address the checkbook issue - because the $$$ questions are intimately linked to the “faith and politics” questions that I posted in my earlier email.
But I am REALLY very happy to interact with you, and anybody else on these matters. I do not want to change your opinions.
I mostly want to test my own “opinions”, and be able to separate the comfort kool-aid of following “my kind” of talking points from the ambrosia of understanding. And there are not many better forums for talking about his than with my uncles, aunts, cousins, and other family members that I love and respect.
Jeffrey
(just to let you know that I am not on my high horse of pseudo-intellectualism, I will admit that it is 4:57 pm on Friday afternoon, and by the time anybody reads this, I will be half way into my “two for one” Friday happy hour special.)
lol
Response to Jeff
Hi all --
The blog is back!
Jeff, thank you for posing those questions. Maybe they are questions on other people's minds also, and I am happy to offer answers that are consistent with Church teaching and my personal understanding of the issues. In my study of Church teaching and theology since undergrad, I am continually comforted and impressed by the phenomenon that every moral value and doctrinal belief my parents instilled in me from my earliest memory has deep groundings in an abundantly rich and sophisticated intellectual tradition that has withstood 2000 years of challenges from philosophies and moralities that have emerged and disappeared and re-emerged in new forms.
In the course of "getting educated" I've found that it is not necessary to set aside my reason in contemplating or attempting to defend my beliefs. On the contrary, in recognizing God as my Creator, I acknowledge that God is the creator of my capacity to reason, and God is certainly not threatened by my reason. In fact the Church teaches that Faith and Reason together bring us to contemplation of Truth. So, it would in fact be misguided and do a disservice to our religion to check rationality at the door and preface all our religious beliefs, not to mention our political ones, on a claim that "The Bible says ..." or "The Magisterium says..."
With that preface, I am happy to respond to your individual questions this weekend, drawing upon my faith AND reason.
Thanks once again to Jeff for keeping the conversation going and for valuing other view points.
Monica
The blog is back!
Jeff, thank you for posing those questions. Maybe they are questions on other people's minds also, and I am happy to offer answers that are consistent with Church teaching and my personal understanding of the issues. In my study of Church teaching and theology since undergrad, I am continually comforted and impressed by the phenomenon that every moral value and doctrinal belief my parents instilled in me from my earliest memory has deep groundings in an abundantly rich and sophisticated intellectual tradition that has withstood 2000 years of challenges from philosophies and moralities that have emerged and disappeared and re-emerged in new forms.
In the course of "getting educated" I've found that it is not necessary to set aside my reason in contemplating or attempting to defend my beliefs. On the contrary, in recognizing God as my Creator, I acknowledge that God is the creator of my capacity to reason, and God is certainly not threatened by my reason. In fact the Church teaches that Faith and Reason together bring us to contemplation of Truth. So, it would in fact be misguided and do a disservice to our religion to check rationality at the door and preface all our religious beliefs, not to mention our political ones, on a claim that "The Bible says ..." or "The Magisterium says..."
With that preface, I am happy to respond to your individual questions this weekend, drawing upon my faith AND reason.
Thanks once again to Jeff for keeping the conversation going and for valuing other view points.
Monica
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Questions
Preface :
I am sorry to equate a woman’s right to choose (in the case of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy) with horrible acts of terrorism or female genital mutilation. Please understand that I am only comparing the logic used to justify those positions, and not saying there is anything close to a moral equivalence between the two! I have stated in the past how much I admire your family’s achievements, generosity and dedication to the culture of life – (for what is faith without works?).
I ask the following questions not to put anybody on the spot, or to play “gotcha”. I ask these questions because I respect the divergent opinions - I know that you arrived at your positions with much reflection, and I’d like to understand better. I do not question your intelligence in holding positions different to my own.
Questions -
If a mother loses her unborn fetus due to natural circumstances, can that fetus be baptized?
If so, from which point after conception can that fetus be baptized? Does a fetus have a soul? Is that soul present at conception?
What is the church’s attitude (and your own) towards artificial insemination and other means of combating a “natural” inability to conceive or carry a child?
How would one weigh the value of lives “created” or "saved" by our modern civilization and technology against the 48 million abortions (quoting number from earlier email) practiced since Roe v Wade? Can there be a moral break-even point in the evolution of society and its norms, if the culture of life is what is most important?
Is an aborted fetus any different from the soul of someone who hasn’t been baptized in the eyes of God? If I remember church doctrine correctly, an un-baptized soul cannot enter into the eternal kingdom of God. In the notion of “saving lives” (eternal lives in any case), wouldn’t obligatory Christian baptism save more souls than the quoted 48 million abortions over the past 40 years?
Wouldn’t it be a better “return on political engagement” (in the eyes of God) to fight for a constitutional amendment making Christian baptism obligatory in the USA rather than fighting to over-turn Roe v Wade?
Wasn't this type of thinking used to justify the crusades, and couldn't it be done again?
Honest, intelligent people who believe they are doing God’s work are fervently opposed to abortion rights (or personal choice, depending on how you want to frame that). I am personally opposed to abortion, but not personally convinced that life starts at conception, and therefore support a woman’s right to choose, although if that person came to me for advice, I would argue in support of life. The logic behind the pro-life position (using an arbitrary defintion of when life starts) strikes me as eerily similar to the justification for female genitalia mutilation in Somalia, Jihad in Iraq, suicide bombing in Israel, the obligation for females to wear a burkha in areas controlled by the Taliban… All of these horrible things are done by people who believe they are doing God’s work. It’s a different scripture, different interpretations of that scripture, a different culture – but all in the name of God. If we disagree on when “life” starts, who wins ? For me, “God” and religion have no say in our secular democracy. I’m pretty sure a lot more than 48 million people have been killed in the name of “God” throughout history. I’ll take my politics anyway you like, but please hold the religion…
That last paragraph is a bit long and blustery, let me resume the “questions” :
How can you have the right to define for others when life starts?
What empirical evidence can you use to support your position?
Is it not a slippery slope to introduce YOUR FAITH into political discourse, would you accept to have your genitalia mutilated if ever you were obligated to live in a country where that act is considered “God’s way” ? What’s the difference?
Once again, please don’t confuse my disagreement with some of the logic used to support the desire to over-turn Roe v Wade as insinuating ANY moral equivalency between what you believe and some of the barbaric fundamentalist Islamic positions… I am only trying to make the point of the slippery slope of introducing faith into the political discourse.
I love you all…really, I do, and always will
I am sorry to equate a woman’s right to choose (in the case of an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy) with horrible acts of terrorism or female genital mutilation. Please understand that I am only comparing the logic used to justify those positions, and not saying there is anything close to a moral equivalence between the two! I have stated in the past how much I admire your family’s achievements, generosity and dedication to the culture of life – (for what is faith without works?).
I ask the following questions not to put anybody on the spot, or to play “gotcha”. I ask these questions because I respect the divergent opinions - I know that you arrived at your positions with much reflection, and I’d like to understand better. I do not question your intelligence in holding positions different to my own.
Questions -
If a mother loses her unborn fetus due to natural circumstances, can that fetus be baptized?
If so, from which point after conception can that fetus be baptized? Does a fetus have a soul? Is that soul present at conception?
What is the church’s attitude (and your own) towards artificial insemination and other means of combating a “natural” inability to conceive or carry a child?
How would one weigh the value of lives “created” or "saved" by our modern civilization and technology against the 48 million abortions (quoting number from earlier email) practiced since Roe v Wade? Can there be a moral break-even point in the evolution of society and its norms, if the culture of life is what is most important?
Is an aborted fetus any different from the soul of someone who hasn’t been baptized in the eyes of God? If I remember church doctrine correctly, an un-baptized soul cannot enter into the eternal kingdom of God. In the notion of “saving lives” (eternal lives in any case), wouldn’t obligatory Christian baptism save more souls than the quoted 48 million abortions over the past 40 years?
Wouldn’t it be a better “return on political engagement” (in the eyes of God) to fight for a constitutional amendment making Christian baptism obligatory in the USA rather than fighting to over-turn Roe v Wade?
Wasn't this type of thinking used to justify the crusades, and couldn't it be done again?
Honest, intelligent people who believe they are doing God’s work are fervently opposed to abortion rights (or personal choice, depending on how you want to frame that). I am personally opposed to abortion, but not personally convinced that life starts at conception, and therefore support a woman’s right to choose, although if that person came to me for advice, I would argue in support of life. The logic behind the pro-life position (using an arbitrary defintion of when life starts) strikes me as eerily similar to the justification for female genitalia mutilation in Somalia, Jihad in Iraq, suicide bombing in Israel, the obligation for females to wear a burkha in areas controlled by the Taliban… All of these horrible things are done by people who believe they are doing God’s work. It’s a different scripture, different interpretations of that scripture, a different culture – but all in the name of God. If we disagree on when “life” starts, who wins ? For me, “God” and religion have no say in our secular democracy. I’m pretty sure a lot more than 48 million people have been killed in the name of “God” throughout history. I’ll take my politics anyway you like, but please hold the religion…
That last paragraph is a bit long and blustery, let me resume the “questions” :
How can you have the right to define for others when life starts?
What empirical evidence can you use to support your position?
Is it not a slippery slope to introduce YOUR FAITH into political discourse, would you accept to have your genitalia mutilated if ever you were obligated to live in a country where that act is considered “God’s way” ? What’s the difference?
Once again, please don’t confuse my disagreement with some of the logic used to support the desire to over-turn Roe v Wade as insinuating ANY moral equivalency between what you believe and some of the barbaric fundamentalist Islamic positions… I am only trying to make the point of the slippery slope of introducing faith into the political discourse.
I love you all…really, I do, and always will
This was written in response to some of the reactions I got to the first piece when posted on facebook, so there may be some sentences that don't quite make sense without the context:
First, let me address the most electric of Nick's assertions- that by my standards, George W. Bush is a good president. It's an effective flourish, but upon a closer look, you will find that my argument is not a simple "if, then" logic equation. The respect for human life and dignity is not the defining characteristic of a good presidency. It is the most basic prerequisite for having the capacity to lead a nation. Many other factors, which have been frequently discussed throughout these elections, are considered after this when judging the success of a presidency. Respect for life does not have the ability to make a presidency successful, but a lack of it is an inherent betrayal to the position.
By my standards, the denial of habeas corpus in Guantanamo, inaction on the environmental crisis, and the embarkment of a pre-empitve war on false premises are just a few of the reasons why I would not classify Bush as a good president. I am not writing this to bash Bush, though- many others have taken care of that for me. My point is that Bush had the propensity to be a good leader and subsequently failed. He did not fail in all regards, and I am very grateful for the pro-life strides that were taken under his guidance and will continue to be taken by his court appointees. But, on far too many other important issues he did fail. I would like to say that he is not alone in holding responsibility for these failures, nor are those who voted for him. I also hold the entire Democratic party responsible for Bush's inadequacies, because they failed then, as they fail now, to put forward a candidate who met the basic prerequisite of a leader- a respect for the lives of those they lead.
The true tragedy is that respect for human life has become so rare that it must be a defining issue. In an ideal world, I could focus on the economic plans being put forth by the candidates, like so many Americans. Out of this fine country, is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide? I refuse to believe that it is. But, they are all we have to work with this time. In the lack of a pro-life president whose other ambitions I share, I have no choice but to support the one candidate whose position on this issue demonstrates a greater degree of moral fiber and hope, no, pray, that he will lead well from there.
On the other assertion, that legalizing abortion actually reduces the number of abortions (and, some people add, deaths from home-made abortions), I believe that there is enough evidence to refute the truth in this, as is discussed in that Newsweek article I posted. However, I am going to put forth what will probably be an unpopular argument that whether or not this is true does not change the fact that legalized abortion should not be tolerated by humanity. Laws exist not only to provide the necessary letters to govern but also to define a society, to define what a society will, and will not, tolerate. Some people might argue that laws should not be based upon a particular religion's precepts. I agree that freedom or religion is of the utmost importance. However, all laws are based off the concept that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong", which inherently implies a governing moral order. In our society, in particular, "equality for all" was an explicit governance and one of the most precious inheritances we Americans have. Which laws we uphold and which we abandon, regardless of their immediate consequences, defines the legacy that we leave to future generations.
Let me also add that religious freedom is at stake in this particular election. When Barack Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, he supports eliminating the rights of Christian doctors to abstain from participating in abortive procedures. He also supports federal funding for abortions, which means that every tax-paying Christian is financially complicit in abortions. With the economy where it is and the extra burden that universally paying for abortions would cost the tax-payer, I sincerely doubt that much money will flow towards crisis pregnancy centers, which actually do reduce the numbers of abortions.
Since I used the comparison to slavery last time, let me use it again. The argument that legalizing abortions reduces the actual number of abortions is eerily familiar to me from the justifications used to perpetuate slavery. Abolishing the abhorrent practice of slavery did have some immediate negative consequences as slavery supporters had warned- society was not yet set up to offer equal opportunities to freed slaves, the consequences of which are still being felt. However, who today would deny that regardless of repercussion our country could not afford to perpetuate this trampling of human rights?
It is only by warped intellect that we have come to convince ourselves that murder of the innocents is an acceptable way to purchase freedom, just as it was by warped intellect that our forefathers came to convince themselves that forced servitude was an acceptable way to purchase their own comfort. Our country cannot afford leaders who are willfully blind to this suppression of rights. Neither can it afford its conscientious voters to shrug this issue off.
First, let me address the most electric of Nick's assertions- that by my standards, George W. Bush is a good president. It's an effective flourish, but upon a closer look, you will find that my argument is not a simple "if, then" logic equation. The respect for human life and dignity is not the defining characteristic of a good presidency. It is the most basic prerequisite for having the capacity to lead a nation. Many other factors, which have been frequently discussed throughout these elections, are considered after this when judging the success of a presidency. Respect for life does not have the ability to make a presidency successful, but a lack of it is an inherent betrayal to the position.
By my standards, the denial of habeas corpus in Guantanamo, inaction on the environmental crisis, and the embarkment of a pre-empitve war on false premises are just a few of the reasons why I would not classify Bush as a good president. I am not writing this to bash Bush, though- many others have taken care of that for me. My point is that Bush had the propensity to be a good leader and subsequently failed. He did not fail in all regards, and I am very grateful for the pro-life strides that were taken under his guidance and will continue to be taken by his court appointees. But, on far too many other important issues he did fail. I would like to say that he is not alone in holding responsibility for these failures, nor are those who voted for him. I also hold the entire Democratic party responsible for Bush's inadequacies, because they failed then, as they fail now, to put forward a candidate who met the basic prerequisite of a leader- a respect for the lives of those they lead.
The true tragedy is that respect for human life has become so rare that it must be a defining issue. In an ideal world, I could focus on the economic plans being put forth by the candidates, like so many Americans. Out of this fine country, is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide? I refuse to believe that it is. But, they are all we have to work with this time. In the lack of a pro-life president whose other ambitions I share, I have no choice but to support the one candidate whose position on this issue demonstrates a greater degree of moral fiber and hope, no, pray, that he will lead well from there.
On the other assertion, that legalizing abortion actually reduces the number of abortions (and, some people add, deaths from home-made abortions), I believe that there is enough evidence to refute the truth in this, as is discussed in that Newsweek article I posted. However, I am going to put forth what will probably be an unpopular argument that whether or not this is true does not change the fact that legalized abortion should not be tolerated by humanity. Laws exist not only to provide the necessary letters to govern but also to define a society, to define what a society will, and will not, tolerate. Some people might argue that laws should not be based upon a particular religion's precepts. I agree that freedom or religion is of the utmost importance. However, all laws are based off the concept that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong", which inherently implies a governing moral order. In our society, in particular, "equality for all" was an explicit governance and one of the most precious inheritances we Americans have. Which laws we uphold and which we abandon, regardless of their immediate consequences, defines the legacy that we leave to future generations.
Let me also add that religious freedom is at stake in this particular election. When Barack Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, he supports eliminating the rights of Christian doctors to abstain from participating in abortive procedures. He also supports federal funding for abortions, which means that every tax-paying Christian is financially complicit in abortions. With the economy where it is and the extra burden that universally paying for abortions would cost the tax-payer, I sincerely doubt that much money will flow towards crisis pregnancy centers, which actually do reduce the numbers of abortions.
Since I used the comparison to slavery last time, let me use it again. The argument that legalizing abortions reduces the actual number of abortions is eerily familiar to me from the justifications used to perpetuate slavery. Abolishing the abhorrent practice of slavery did have some immediate negative consequences as slavery supporters had warned- society was not yet set up to offer equal opportunities to freed slaves, the consequences of which are still being felt. However, who today would deny that regardless of repercussion our country could not afford to perpetuate this trampling of human rights?
It is only by warped intellect that we have come to convince ourselves that murder of the innocents is an acceptable way to purchase freedom, just as it was by warped intellect that our forefathers came to convince themselves that forced servitude was an acceptable way to purchase their own comfort. Our country cannot afford leaders who are willfully blind to this suppression of rights. Neither can it afford its conscientious voters to shrug this issue off.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Why I Can't Vote for Barack Obama
As a twenty-three year-old living in Boston, every day I feel the weight of my dirty secret: I will not be voting for Barack Obama on November 5. From what I have read in the New York Times, this clearly must mean that I am a) racist, b) a war-monger, c) the mortal enemy of polar bears, and d) looking forward to losing my Depression-fifteen. No one seems to give credence to the possibility of being none of those things and yet finding oneself diametrically opposed to supporting his campaign. There are, of course, several reasons, but most of them could be conceded if not for The One Reason: Obama’s explicit promise to erase all defenses of the unborn.
Many people will be outraged that I will base my vote on that one, single issue. If we were talking about gun rights or tax rates, then yes, I would agree that my single-mindedness is simply narrow-mindedness. Allow me to explain how this one issue truly does define the candidate.
Our country was founded upon the principles of every man’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. First among this list is life. Many other important rights followed these three, but there is a reason why these are first. They are non-negotiable. They trump all others. I support women’s rights. If there was a way that no woman ever came to resent the life growing within her and that no child was ever conceived in an unwelcoming world, believe me I would support it. I am not unaware of the tragedy that pregnancy is to many women- reputations soiled, homes broken, lives disrupted, careers derailed, health strained… the list goes on. I hear that sorrow. Even louder, though, then these cries are the cries of the over forty-eight million children slaughtered in their innocence since 1973 in America. Abortion “rights” do make life easier for women who do not want to be pregnant. Many women who have had abortions go on to accelerated careers that would never have been achieved with a child or go on to have a family with the right man at a better time. That’s nice. But, what shame, what inconvenience, what re-shaping of plans, what future could possibly outweigh the value of that one life taken? I do not believe that a woman’s right to choose her future should ever be worth more than the rights of the twenty-four million would-be women who have seen their rights to any future sacrificed for them.
What is the purpose of leadership if not to speak the hard truths when people most need to hear them? What does America represent if not the promotion of equality and defense of the innocent? What possible good could come from a leader who has such little regard for the value of human life? Is it possible to believe words of peace when they come from a man who even supports killing children who survive botched partial-birth abortions? His words of hope and his support for the depths of depravity cannot be reconciled in my mind.
This is not to say that I am particularly moved by John McCain. Truly, he does support several things that have damaged America and will continue to damage America. The suppression of human rights that blossomed under Bush and has the potential to be continued under McCain is particularly troubling. But, under Obama, even if we returned to the most sparkling human rights record, saw an economic boom, and patched up the whole in the ozone layer, we would still be a shining city built upon rotting corpses, just as we were when we were built upon slavery- a lesson that the first African-American presidential candidate seems to have tragically forgotten.
Many people will be outraged that I will base my vote on that one, single issue. If we were talking about gun rights or tax rates, then yes, I would agree that my single-mindedness is simply narrow-mindedness. Allow me to explain how this one issue truly does define the candidate.
Our country was founded upon the principles of every man’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. First among this list is life. Many other important rights followed these three, but there is a reason why these are first. They are non-negotiable. They trump all others. I support women’s rights. If there was a way that no woman ever came to resent the life growing within her and that no child was ever conceived in an unwelcoming world, believe me I would support it. I am not unaware of the tragedy that pregnancy is to many women- reputations soiled, homes broken, lives disrupted, careers derailed, health strained… the list goes on. I hear that sorrow. Even louder, though, then these cries are the cries of the over forty-eight million children slaughtered in their innocence since 1973 in America. Abortion “rights” do make life easier for women who do not want to be pregnant. Many women who have had abortions go on to accelerated careers that would never have been achieved with a child or go on to have a family with the right man at a better time. That’s nice. But, what shame, what inconvenience, what re-shaping of plans, what future could possibly outweigh the value of that one life taken? I do not believe that a woman’s right to choose her future should ever be worth more than the rights of the twenty-four million would-be women who have seen their rights to any future sacrificed for them.
What is the purpose of leadership if not to speak the hard truths when people most need to hear them? What does America represent if not the promotion of equality and defense of the innocent? What possible good could come from a leader who has such little regard for the value of human life? Is it possible to believe words of peace when they come from a man who even supports killing children who survive botched partial-birth abortions? His words of hope and his support for the depths of depravity cannot be reconciled in my mind.
This is not to say that I am particularly moved by John McCain. Truly, he does support several things that have damaged America and will continue to damage America. The suppression of human rights that blossomed under Bush and has the potential to be continued under McCain is particularly troubling. But, under Obama, even if we returned to the most sparkling human rights record, saw an economic boom, and patched up the whole in the ozone layer, we would still be a shining city built upon rotting corpses, just as we were when we were built upon slavery- a lesson that the first African-American presidential candidate seems to have tragically forgotten.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Good read from Friedman in the NY Times
I don't generally like Friedman, he writes well, and his "international perspective" is well intentioned, but I find it somewhat pedantic and without "food for thought" above or beyond what I come across elsewhere...
But his article in yesterday's Times really struck a chord with me, and I encourage you all to read it - here's an excerpt that I found particularly poignant, and a thought that has crossed my mind more than once -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html
Happy birthday to Patrick Brown, happy anniversary to Amy&Gene (May 8th for both events), happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there...
Peace,
Jeffrey
But his article in yesterday's Times really struck a chord with me, and I encourage you all to read it - here's an excerpt that I found particularly poignant, and a thought that has crossed my mind more than once -
That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send
more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you
have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one
that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours
later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals
and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had
just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare
Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn
Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War
II.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html
Happy birthday to Patrick Brown, happy anniversary to Amy&Gene (May 8th for both events), happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there...
Peace,
Jeffrey
Thursday, May 1, 2008
New month, new post
Happy communist labor day to all!!
We had a nice day off, the weather is wonderful, and things are going well here.
I really don't have all that much to say right now (it was a day off, and I spent some time in the sun, which accentuates the effect of the wine we had at the picnic I guess...)
The kids are doing great, summer seems right around the corner now.
Happy International Labor Day to all...
We had a nice day off, the weather is wonderful, and things are going well here.
I really don't have all that much to say right now (it was a day off, and I spent some time in the sun, which accentuates the effect of the wine we had at the picnic I guess...)
The kids are doing great, summer seems right around the corner now.
Happy International Labor Day to all...
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Gotta post something
I'd like to thank whoever lent me that $10 to join the "Brown Family Tree" NCAA bracket pool. Although I haven't seen a college basketball game since sometime around 1993, I was able to run roughshod over the league, but they all had last names beginning with "H", which somewhat dampens the thirll of my victory. I was the only "Brown" in the thing, so it would have been extremely upsetting had I lost :) I guess this prooves the "monkey throwing darts" theory of bracket selections...
Anyway, I don't have much to say, although we did enjoy a nice visit from the "bigdog" this past weekend, the kids were thrilled to see their grandpa, and we had nice weather to boot, so all is good...
That will have to do for now, take care all...
Peace,
Jeffrey
Friday, March 28, 2008
"and to the person who takes your cloak , do not withhold even your tunic"
Hi all,
Allison just sent me this link to an NPR segment (listen to the audio) - a beautiful example showing that Christ meant the words of the Sermon on the Mount to be taken literally:
"To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven."
Luke 6:29-36
Allison just sent me this link to an NPR segment (listen to the audio) - a beautiful example showing that Christ meant the words of the Sermon on the Mount to be taken literally:
"To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven."
Luke 6:29-36
Sunday, March 23, 2008
happy Easter 2
Best to everyone in this wonderful family. If barack Obama can't disown his grandmother then I can't disown young Kenny. Drats!! but neither can any of you disown me. Ha ha..Some family news: Rose has bought a new old house threeblocks from Edward and Missy and Kathy and me. She closed on it last week and her Meriden house is under contract.We had the whole gang here for Easter Breakfast{Tom had to work}.Everyone is healthy and most seem happy. who'd a thunk it.. Happy easter and may this season of repentance and resurrection affect us all and the world around us..
Happy Easter!
I was the only one looking for an Easter basket this morning, which was a first and hopefully a last. It just wasn't the same without Monica gloating because she knows where my basket is before I do. She and Bessie will have much to report after their trip to Rome, I am sure.
Being the only one officially around this holiday has me thinking about how blessed I have been- we all have been- for so many years to have each other. Christ died so that we might continue to have His life in us. Never is that life more evident than when I am surrounded by all the good people in my family, striving in all of our different ways to be better people. So, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you all for the inspiration you have provided over the years and to wish you all a very happy Easter!
Being the only one officially around this holiday has me thinking about how blessed I have been- we all have been- for so many years to have each other. Christ died so that we might continue to have His life in us. Never is that life more evident than when I am surrounded by all the good people in my family, striving in all of our different ways to be better people. So, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you all for the inspiration you have provided over the years and to wish you all a very happy Easter!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
March Madness--Last Call
Picks for the March Madness pool have to be in by 11 am Eastern Time tomorrow (Thursday).
It goes very quickly as you just click on the teams you want, and they're automatically written in for you. Sweet.
Our kids like saying the names "Xavier" and "Duke", hence, someone in this house is likely to win if Xavier and Duke play well!
Mae is a good Catholic girl and has St. Joseph's going all the way. Unlikely, but it would be quite the upset to have called.
--Maryanne
It goes very quickly as you just click on the teams you want, and they're automatically written in for you. Sweet.
Our kids like saying the names "Xavier" and "Duke", hence, someone in this house is likely to win if Xavier and Duke play well!
Mae is a good Catholic girl and has St. Joseph's going all the way. Unlikely, but it would be quite the upset to have called.
--Maryanne
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Corporate Welfare, continued
For the past 2 years I've been crying wolf on the real estate bubble in the US. It doesn't mean I was right (it's a pretty easy position to say "just wait, something bad is going to happen"), but the subprime market coupled with negative consumer savings showed some serious structural problems with the booming US economy. The house of cards built on this shaky foundation seems to be ready to tumble, and recession seems inevitable. There is hope that the recession may be a brief 8 month hiatus from growth, but there are some scary signs that it could be a long term affair (2 to 3 years).
Personally, I think that the deregulation of financial markets, as well as fed policy helped avoid a more important recession post 2001. The tech-bubble-burst coupled with decreased consumer spending (post-9/11) should have led to a longer, more significant recession in my opinion. The combination of defense spending (or homeland security spending if you prefer - same corporate profits) and the real estate boom helped avoid a more important recession at the time. But in hindsight, it appears that the US economy stepped back from a cliff in order to get a running start as it jumps off now.
The illegal war in Iraq has drained the nation's coffers, so it will be very difficult to fund public works projects that would have the triple benefit of
1) being necessary (how many bridges and levees need significant repairs)
2) strengthening the US economy long term (improved infrastructure adds to both quality of life and productivity gains)
3) creating jobs
The real estate bubble (fuelled in part by sub-prime markets and similar financial shenanigans - which were possible because of lack of oversight and deregulation) has weakened both the financial sector as a whole and the ability of the government to react - both because of real world financial constraints, as well as the current administration's ineptitude.
I will end this post as I ended my last – how much of the potentially huge bailout of the financial sector is going to be carried by the middle class? And here’s a couple of lines that struck a chord with me :
"Never do I want to hear again from my conservative friends about how brilliant capitalists are, how much they deserve their seven-figure salaries and how government should keep its hands off the private economy.
The Wall Street titans have turned into a bunch of welfare clients. They are desperate to be bailed out by government from their own incompetence, and from the deregulatory regime for which they lobbied so hard. They have lost "confidence" in each other, you see, because none of these oh-so-wise captains of the universe have any idea what kinds of devalued securities sit in one another's portfolios.
So they have stopped investing. The biggest, most respected investment firms threaten to come crashing down. You can't have that. It's just fine to make it harder for the average Joe to file for bankruptcy, as did that wretched bankruptcy bill passed by Congress in 2005 at the request of the credit card industry. But the big guys are "too big to fail," because they could bring us all down with them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702154.html
Peace to all
Jeffrey
PS – I created a bracket in the NCAA pool – can someone lend me the $10 cover charge to kick into the pool ?
Personally, I think that the deregulation of financial markets, as well as fed policy helped avoid a more important recession post 2001. The tech-bubble-burst coupled with decreased consumer spending (post-9/11) should have led to a longer, more significant recession in my opinion. The combination of defense spending (or homeland security spending if you prefer - same corporate profits) and the real estate boom helped avoid a more important recession at the time. But in hindsight, it appears that the US economy stepped back from a cliff in order to get a running start as it jumps off now.
The illegal war in Iraq has drained the nation's coffers, so it will be very difficult to fund public works projects that would have the triple benefit of
1) being necessary (how many bridges and levees need significant repairs)
2) strengthening the US economy long term (improved infrastructure adds to both quality of life and productivity gains)
3) creating jobs
The real estate bubble (fuelled in part by sub-prime markets and similar financial shenanigans - which were possible because of lack of oversight and deregulation) has weakened both the financial sector as a whole and the ability of the government to react - both because of real world financial constraints, as well as the current administration's ineptitude.
I will end this post as I ended my last – how much of the potentially huge bailout of the financial sector is going to be carried by the middle class? And here’s a couple of lines that struck a chord with me :
"Never do I want to hear again from my conservative friends about how brilliant capitalists are, how much they deserve their seven-figure salaries and how government should keep its hands off the private economy.
The Wall Street titans have turned into a bunch of welfare clients. They are desperate to be bailed out by government from their own incompetence, and from the deregulatory regime for which they lobbied so hard. They have lost "confidence" in each other, you see, because none of these oh-so-wise captains of the universe have any idea what kinds of devalued securities sit in one another's portfolios.
So they have stopped investing. The biggest, most respected investment firms threaten to come crashing down. You can't have that. It's just fine to make it harder for the average Joe to file for bankruptcy, as did that wretched bankruptcy bill passed by Congress in 2005 at the request of the credit card industry. But the big guys are "too big to fail," because they could bring us all down with them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702154.html
Peace to all
Jeffrey
PS – I created a bracket in the NCAA pool – can someone lend me the $10 cover charge to kick into the pool ?
Monday, March 17, 2008
March Madness
Hopefully you recieved an e-mail regarding an NCAA Basketball Pool. You can sign up through your e-mail, if you didn't get one, let us know.
Mike
Mike
You don't choose your family :-)
I don't want to censure anybody from expressing what they feel like sharing with the family. I think it's possible that certain members of the family are "turned off" by the abortion issue, as it is a rather divisive one, but I'd rather see those posts than none at all !
My two cents on the abortion issue are not grounded in 12th century philosophy or on the church's teachings. I am politically pro-choice, personally pro-life. There is too much suffering in the world for fully developed and previously born "human persons" - I think it's more important for society to focus energy and resources towards these suffering populations rather than the tremendous energy spent trying to save the un-born. (In saying this - don’t think for one second that I don’t acknowledge the “good will” towards the “born” by pro-life proponents in our family – they walk the walk).
I do find that it is an ENORMOUS contradiction that many of same people who oppose the right to an abortion are also against the use of public funds towards preventing unwanted pregnancies. How do they explain that contradiction in law schools? Do they simply deny human sexuality? Must one consider that the spread of disease and the risk of unwanted pregnancy must be the potential punishment for sexual intercourse in order that there is less of it in the world? Wouldn’t somebody who was motivated to eradicate abortions appreciate anything that helped diminish unwanted pregnancies? That’s where I get lost…
I like the “respect of life” argument, but much less the “every sperm is sacred” argument (Monty Python reference)… On one hand there is a claim that the respect of life is secular, and on the other, there is use of non-secular arguments that contribute to more unwanted pregnancies, therefore more abortions (as well as the spread of disease, etc)…
PS - Abstinence only education has never worked, there has never been any evidence that it does (not that many of the current administration’s policies are based on evidence). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html.
Other than that, we had a nice weekend here, how about you?
On a different subject matter, what do you all think of the financial crisis that is brewing ? I am a loyal Paul Krugman reader, I admit that his writing has helped shape many of my opinions (although not everything he writes is gold). When I think of the potential cost taxpayers may have to bear in order to save the financial institutions that pay their managing directors millions upon millions of dollars, and whose shareholders have been living the highlife over the past couple of years, it makes me sick. I can't believe that people are still afraid of the "economic boogeyman" that is comprehensive health coverage, but do not revolt against the real abuses of power and tax dollars such as Iraq and deregulation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Peace to all
Jeffrey
My two cents on the abortion issue are not grounded in 12th century philosophy or on the church's teachings. I am politically pro-choice, personally pro-life. There is too much suffering in the world for fully developed and previously born "human persons" - I think it's more important for society to focus energy and resources towards these suffering populations rather than the tremendous energy spent trying to save the un-born. (In saying this - don’t think for one second that I don’t acknowledge the “good will” towards the “born” by pro-life proponents in our family – they walk the walk).
I do find that it is an ENORMOUS contradiction that many of same people who oppose the right to an abortion are also against the use of public funds towards preventing unwanted pregnancies. How do they explain that contradiction in law schools? Do they simply deny human sexuality? Must one consider that the spread of disease and the risk of unwanted pregnancy must be the potential punishment for sexual intercourse in order that there is less of it in the world? Wouldn’t somebody who was motivated to eradicate abortions appreciate anything that helped diminish unwanted pregnancies? That’s where I get lost…
I like the “respect of life” argument, but much less the “every sperm is sacred” argument (Monty Python reference)… On one hand there is a claim that the respect of life is secular, and on the other, there is use of non-secular arguments that contribute to more unwanted pregnancies, therefore more abortions (as well as the spread of disease, etc)…
PS - Abstinence only education has never worked, there has never been any evidence that it does (not that many of the current administration’s policies are based on evidence). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html.
Other than that, we had a nice weekend here, how about you?
On a different subject matter, what do you all think of the financial crisis that is brewing ? I am a loyal Paul Krugman reader, I admit that his writing has helped shape many of my opinions (although not everything he writes is gold). When I think of the potential cost taxpayers may have to bear in order to save the financial institutions that pay their managing directors millions upon millions of dollars, and whose shareholders have been living the highlife over the past couple of years, it makes me sick. I can't believe that people are still afraid of the "economic boogeyman" that is comprehensive health coverage, but do not revolt against the real abuses of power and tax dollars such as Iraq and deregulation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Peace to all
Jeffrey
Sunday, March 16, 2008
A call for a new blog
Can we establish 2 blogs: one for discussion on abortion, and one for discussion of all other topics? I can then carefully avoid reading the former and focus on the latter?
Is anyone else in the family growing tired of this particular debate, or am I on the only curmudgeon on this board?
Is anyone else in the family growing tired of this particular debate, or am I on the only curmudgeon on this board?
Ken of Ivyknolls said...
This is from Brother Ken: I certainly agree that our society should be much more family supportive than it is. I note that very recently, China extended its one child policy, which undoubtedly produces many abortions. I would suggest that medical knowledge today, if it were available to Thomas then, would have him not so unsure as to when life began, Also, I question how many people who have abortions do so believing the fetus is not a human. In other words, I think many know what it is but choose to terminate anyway for a variety of reasons-hence the regret and guilt that we are told many suffer.
March 15, 2008 2:26 PM
This is from Brother Ken: I certainly agree that our society should be much more family supportive than it is. I note that very recently, China extended its one child policy, which undoubtedly produces many abortions. I would suggest that medical knowledge today, if it were available to Thomas then, would have him not so unsure as to when life began, Also, I question how many people who have abortions do so believing the fetus is not a human. In other words, I think many know what it is but choose to terminate anyway for a variety of reasons-hence the regret and guilt that we are told many suffer.
March 15, 2008 2:26 PM
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Comment on Uncle Jerry's post
Uncle Jerry - As a law student who gets into these discussions regularly in classes and among my diversely opinionated acquaintances, and someone who reads a lot about the issue in general, I'd agree with my father's clarification about the present-day debate over when life begins.
As my Dad said, mainstream philosophers' understandings and Church teaching on the beginning of life has advanced beyond Aquinas, who wrote in the 1200s when virtually nothing scientific was known about the biological development of the human organism. All they could rely on then was the mother's perception of the "quickening" of the baby to know life had begun. Now, science is very clear on the matter of the beginning of a unique human organism at fertilization, though people continue to debate the moment when human personhood begins. Some, like Peter Singer at Princeton, argue that personhood doesn't begin until an infant matures enough to be able to reason, and thus they can justify infanticide. [ Incidentally, I've heard it said that if we're not persons if we can't exercise reason, and it's justifiable to kill non-persons, human beings ages 14-18 would quickly become an endangered species ... I never would've made it this far...]
It may well be that it's not representative of your position on this, Uncle Jerry, but I'm pretty certain the vocal majority of the pro-choice movement today is not promoting an individual's choice about whether or not to consider the fetus a human being (and presuming the choice to view the fetus as a non-human being, inferring the freedom to choose to "interrupt" its development before it becomes a full-fledged person with human rights warranting societal protection). Rather, faced with incontrovertible scientific evidence about the beginning of human life, the woman's choice that pro-choicers advocate is whether or not to continue to be responsible for the care, before and after birth, of another human being who has imposed physically, emotionally, economically on the woman's life in a way she did not plan.
That's my take on the subject of the controversy. I swear I tried to be objective.
As my Dad said, mainstream philosophers' understandings and Church teaching on the beginning of life has advanced beyond Aquinas, who wrote in the 1200s when virtually nothing scientific was known about the biological development of the human organism. All they could rely on then was the mother's perception of the "quickening" of the baby to know life had begun. Now, science is very clear on the matter of the beginning of a unique human organism at fertilization, though people continue to debate the moment when human personhood begins. Some, like Peter Singer at Princeton, argue that personhood doesn't begin until an infant matures enough to be able to reason, and thus they can justify infanticide. [ Incidentally, I've heard it said that if we're not persons if we can't exercise reason, and it's justifiable to kill non-persons, human beings ages 14-18 would quickly become an endangered species ... I never would've made it this far...]
It may well be that it's not representative of your position on this, Uncle Jerry, but I'm pretty certain the vocal majority of the pro-choice movement today is not promoting an individual's choice about whether or not to consider the fetus a human being (and presuming the choice to view the fetus as a non-human being, inferring the freedom to choose to "interrupt" its development before it becomes a full-fledged person with human rights warranting societal protection). Rather, faced with incontrovertible scientific evidence about the beginning of human life, the woman's choice that pro-choicers advocate is whether or not to continue to be responsible for the care, before and after birth, of another human being who has imposed physically, emotionally, economically on the woman's life in a way she did not plan.
That's my take on the subject of the controversy. I swear I tried to be objective.
not so random thoughts
First, Douglas, my "brain scans"are fine. 9 more days. Second on the abortion front, let me weigh in. I am not sure where and when it was determined theologically or scientifically that the fetus is a human being and that abortion is, therefore, the killing of a human being. In my previous life I used to study these things and I remember that Thomistic theology said that there was no certainty about this question and ,therefore, a correct moral approach was to err on the side of safety and not approve abortion. that was the church teaching for many years and it is one that I have tried to teach to my family while at the same time understanding that others might come to different conclusions and eschewing the criminalization of those decisions by others. Contrary to the letter from the Princeton student, we know from long experience in our country and in others that the criminalization of abortion leads to many horrors affecting most of all the poorest among us who can't purchase the services of private clinics etc. I agree with the need to encourage celibacy for the unmarried,preventions of unwanted pregnancys for everyone, adoption when it is indicated and refusal of abortion by those who believe it is wrong. It is essential that we support women who are pregnant much better than we do, through paid leave from work to nutrition and free health care that doesn't carry the stigma of welfare or charity. my mother tells me that when I was in utero her physician recommended abortion{no cheap jokes here}. She went home to talk to my father about it and he told her the Church said no to that procedure. Good for me and Steve, Doug and Therese, since the reason for the recommendation was that mom already had two caesarians and could not tolerate any more.I am glad Brown[and Mom] decided to abide by the church's teachings and I hope that our family continues to do so. Criminalization of a practice when society is so deeply divided about the fundamental question of whether or not the fetus is a human being strikes me as unwise and unjust.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Constance's ski trip
It's been pointed out to me that my political / current events commentary is appreciated more (although marginally) than my inappropriate joke material for the Brown family blog, so I'll try to stick to that in the future...
Constance, as well as every kid in her grade level at school is skiing this week on a school trip to the Pyrenees. I think it cost us €15 out of pocket, the rest is subsidized by the local and regional government. This is a French tradition, and happens in just about all school districts (I'm sure it may exist in the states some places as well...)
While it's true that a certain % of the kids in Constance's school have been on skiing vacations with their families, it's likely that there are some kids in the class who will see the mountains and the snow for the first time in their lives, and that is something that I personally feel is a good allocation of my taxes. Sure, there is no "return on investment", but I remember the first time I went skiing (thanks to Tina Wileikis, our music / piano teacher), and I will always have fond memories of that first day on the slopes. The area we live in is the poorest region in France (as measured by GDP) and the town we live in has a certain number of people who live pretty much hand to mouth (the hand being the "welfare" state support that they live on). As much as I don't like my taxes allowing people to "choose" whether to work or not ("Well if I work I only make €300 more a month, and that's not enough to make it worthwhile..." is something I have heard people say openly), I do like the fact that the children of these families get to have a one week ski vacation including rentals, lifts and lessons - and everybody in the same boat (or bus, if you would).
That will have to do for now, I hope you are all well, enjoy palm Sunday (that was always one of my favorite masses) as well as your Easter preparations…
Peace,
Jeffrey
Constance, as well as every kid in her grade level at school is skiing this week on a school trip to the Pyrenees. I think it cost us €15 out of pocket, the rest is subsidized by the local and regional government. This is a French tradition, and happens in just about all school districts (I'm sure it may exist in the states some places as well...)
While it's true that a certain % of the kids in Constance's school have been on skiing vacations with their families, it's likely that there are some kids in the class who will see the mountains and the snow for the first time in their lives, and that is something that I personally feel is a good allocation of my taxes. Sure, there is no "return on investment", but I remember the first time I went skiing (thanks to Tina Wileikis, our music / piano teacher), and I will always have fond memories of that first day on the slopes. The area we live in is the poorest region in France (as measured by GDP) and the town we live in has a certain number of people who live pretty much hand to mouth (the hand being the "welfare" state support that they live on). As much as I don't like my taxes allowing people to "choose" whether to work or not ("Well if I work I only make €300 more a month, and that's not enough to make it worthwhile..." is something I have heard people say openly), I do like the fact that the children of these families get to have a one week ski vacation including rentals, lifts and lessons - and everybody in the same boat (or bus, if you would).
That will have to do for now, I hope you are all well, enjoy palm Sunday (that was always one of my favorite masses) as well as your Easter preparations…
Peace,
Jeffrey
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Report from Myrtle Beach
We just returned from a great 4-day weekend at the 4th Annual Brown Family Golf Trip... family members present: Pete and Tom Rubino 2, Jerry Brown 2, John Brown, Steve Brown - the younger, Doug Brown 2, Pat Brown, Brian Meskiell, and myself. Also - some great friends who qualify as honorary Brown family members: Bill, Brendan, Ed, Keith, Jeff, Chris, and Jordan.
We played 4 beautiful courses, and had lots of fun together.
The weather was all over the map! Thursday - 65 and sunny... Friday 62 and very rainy - we got 1 round in... Saturday - extreme wind and cool temps... and Sunday - started out cold and sunny, but warmed up nicely for a great finish!
BIG NEWS - Keith Fowler shot a Hole-in-One on the 17th at Oyster Bay on Sunday - he was in the last group, so when he came into the clubhouse we gave him the Brown Cheer - it was fun to see his excitement and pride. (For those of you who are doubters, Keith was quick to point out that his shot was witnessed by Brendan Higgins - a cop, and by John Brown, a lawyer. INSERT YOUR JOKES HERE:_________________________________).
Missing regulars this year: Jerry 1 - hope you are doing OK with Brain Scans... and Kenny 3 - hope you are healing OK as well.
As for the news - Goodbye, Governor Spitzer... hello Governor Patterson!
As for the recent blogs about abortion that nobody wants to answer - I think that we all want no abortions - but not all of us are on the same page about how to bring it to an end.
Also - Jeff - please send your jokes to me first for approval.
We played 4 beautiful courses, and had lots of fun together.
The weather was all over the map! Thursday - 65 and sunny... Friday 62 and very rainy - we got 1 round in... Saturday - extreme wind and cool temps... and Sunday - started out cold and sunny, but warmed up nicely for a great finish!
BIG NEWS - Keith Fowler shot a Hole-in-One on the 17th at Oyster Bay on Sunday - he was in the last group, so when he came into the clubhouse we gave him the Brown Cheer - it was fun to see his excitement and pride. (For those of you who are doubters, Keith was quick to point out that his shot was witnessed by Brendan Higgins - a cop, and by John Brown, a lawyer. INSERT YOUR JOKES HERE:_________________________________).
Missing regulars this year: Jerry 1 - hope you are doing OK with Brain Scans... and Kenny 3 - hope you are healing OK as well.
As for the news - Goodbye, Governor Spitzer... hello Governor Patterson!
As for the recent blogs about abortion that nobody wants to answer - I think that we all want no abortions - but not all of us are on the same page about how to bring it to an end.
Also - Jeff - please send your jokes to me first for approval.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Time for the "sheriff" to turn in his badge!
Eliot Spitzer was known as the "sheriff of wall street" - I guess that's over. I would also guess that his "pledge of ethics reform" will have to start at home. Too bad for his family, such a disgrace. On the positive side - it may be the end of his extreme abortion bill (S.5829). "This bill would raise abortion to the level of fundamental right, prohibiting any reasonable restrictions; would allow non-physicians to perform abortions... and under the guise of eliminating discrimination, would also endanger the religious liberty of the Chruch" It could force Catholic hospitals, service agencies and schools to cooperate in abortion and other morally objectionable practices at the risk of losing their state-issued licenses. (ECardinalEgan letter 3.6.08) As it is New York State already permits abortion throughout the entire pregnancy - and has the highest abortion rate in the nation. Maybe by the time I finish this blog, Spitzer will have resigned! That's all for now folks!
Weekend update
Hello one and all. I hope you all enjoyed your weekend, nothing all that exciting to talk about here in the south of France, we are still waiting for spring to come around, the weather has been uncharacteristically mediocre...
I just thought I’d drop in a line or two in the interest of keeping people coming back to this blog thing. I took the kids out to see a hockey game Saturday night. We had a great time, although Eleanor fell asleep before the final buzzer. I kind of stood out in the crowd of supporters, since I cheered as much for the good hits as I did for the goals, and Euro-style hockey is much more about puck movement and skills, and less of a contact sport than you’ll see in North America. It’s a nice spectacle all the same, and the local (Montpellier) team won, so we were all happy.
In the interest of moving the discussion towards some lighter fare that we can either all agree or at least agree to disagree on, I’ll share my favorite political joke from last week (courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel) :
(joke edited out of main post and put inthe comments - apparently not an appropriate joke)
Peace to all,
Jeffrey
I just thought I’d drop in a line or two in the interest of keeping people coming back to this blog thing. I took the kids out to see a hockey game Saturday night. We had a great time, although Eleanor fell asleep before the final buzzer. I kind of stood out in the crowd of supporters, since I cheered as much for the good hits as I did for the goals, and Euro-style hockey is much more about puck movement and skills, and less of a contact sport than you’ll see in North America. It’s a nice spectacle all the same, and the local (Montpellier) team won, so we were all happy.
In the interest of moving the discussion towards some lighter fare that we can either all agree or at least agree to disagree on, I’ll share my favorite political joke from last week (courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel) :
(joke edited out of main post and put inthe comments - apparently not an appropriate joke)
Peace to all,
Jeffrey
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Election Results (Test)
This is a test post, but I thought to include a link to something in it:
Link to delegate tracker
Link to "what have the Unions ever done for us?" video (Australian)
And, one joke:
*************************************************
An elderly couple had dinner at another couple's house, and after eating, the wives left the table and went into the kitchen.
The two gentlemen were talking, and one said, "Last night we went out to a new restaurant and it was really great. I would recommend it very highly."
The other man said, "What is the name of the restaurant?"
The first man thought and thought and finally said, "What is the name of that flower you give to someone you love?
You know... The one that's red and has thorns."
"Do you mean a rose?"
"Yes, that's the one," replied the man. He then turned towards the kitchen and yelled, "Rose, what's the name of that restaurant we went to last night?"
-Ed
Link to delegate tracker
Link to "what have the Unions ever done for us?" video (Australian)
And, one joke:
*************************************************
An elderly couple had dinner at another couple's house, and after eating, the wives left the table and went into the kitchen.
The two gentlemen were talking, and one said, "Last night we went out to a new restaurant and it was really great. I would recommend it very highly."
The other man said, "What is the name of the restaurant?"
The first man thought and thought and finally said, "What is the name of that flower you give to someone you love?
You know... The one that's red and has thorns."
"Do you mean a rose?"
"Yes, that's the one," replied the man. He then turned towards the kitchen and yelled, "Rose, what's the name of that restaurant we went to last night?"
-Ed
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Tremendous Brown Legacy
The Letter to Obama is beautiful and well-written...and hopeful. I love the compassion extended to the mothers. So often I think women aren't really left a "choice" at all because they lack support at so many levels. A culture of life would allow every mother to birth her child and offer that child the love of a family--whether that be the biological family or the joyous adoptive family. We have wonderful examples of people within the extended Brown family furthering this culture of life. What a tremendous legacy!
RocknRoll
that was a great day with the family, but as you can see from the photo....You can make me dress up, but you can't make me behave! That's my rock star stance that I have obviously mastered.
Glad to join the blogging ranks!
Well, here we go -I accepted Monica's invitation to join the ranks. I must say that I have already had a few laughs from the blogs. I especially liked the photo, Patrick in particular, at Big Doug's 60th.
Tong Myung
Tong Myong doesn't mean anything. It is the name of the founder of Korea several thousands of years ago. The George Washington, if you will.
I somehow got on.
Dear family, It wasn't easy but for better or worse I am here, blogging away. This should be interesting (and time consuming). Best wishes to all. Ken
open letter to Obama
Hey All -- I'm glad so many of you made the transition to the blog!! All is well in New York, NY - today the weather's in the 50s and I'm delighted. I was afraid that the conversation was losing some of its polemic tone, so I felt it was time to bring up Obama again.
Before the blog distracted me, I was sitting here preparing for my American Legal History class that begins in an hour. Our topic the last two weeks has been post-Civil War Reconstruction and for today I had to read Plessy v. Ferguson. I've read Plessy multiple times since high school for various classes, but it struck me anew to read it in the context of these words written by a student at Princeton I know who had an "open letter to Barack Obama" published online today:
" ... Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems. Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual? Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can. — Sherif Girgis of Dover, Del., is a senior philosophy major at Princeton University and a 2008 Rhodes Scholar.
Before the blog distracted me, I was sitting here preparing for my American Legal History class that begins in an hour. Our topic the last two weeks has been post-Civil War Reconstruction and for today I had to read Plessy v. Ferguson. I've read Plessy multiple times since high school for various classes, but it struck me anew to read it in the context of these words written by a student at Princeton I know who had an "open letter to Barack Obama" published online today:
" ... Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems. Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual? Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can. — Sherif Girgis of Dover, Del., is a senior philosophy major at Princeton University and a 2008 Rhodes Scholar.
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Big Dog turns 60
Douglas Brown, Sr - also known as "The Big Dog" put together his own 60th birthday bash this past weekend. We were a party of 11 (Mom&Dad, Doug&Di, Mel&Rob, Amy&Gene, Pat&Heather, and me and my shadow) and "party" is the appropriate word when this crowd gets together. We started off with some drinks at the Alex Hotel (E45th street), and then made our way over for a matinee of "Rock and Roll" at the Jacobs Theater. If anybody was expecting "Broadway Musical" type "entertainment", they would have been disappointed, but we were treated to an excellent performance of a well written play which mixed some English intellectuals invloved in the Communist party with the Czech "revolution" and the following Soviet repression. The music of the times was the thread throughout the play. I guess my father's love for the music, as well as his love for all things Czech (my mother is Irish/Czech) inspired him to get tickets for this show. I am happy he did, there was a lot of food for thought in the play (plus excellent acting and writing), as well as a good time in general. Pat was especially inspired by the dialogues discussing the different levels of concsiousness and the relativity of truth, as you can see here :
After the play, we went back to the hotel for a cocktail in my parent's suite : here's the view from their suite :
After our cocktail party, we made our way to "Le Perigord", an excellent french restaurant (Big Dog's choice, and a good one!). We had a great meal with lots of great wines before making our way back to the hotel.
It really was an excellent weekend, and I'd just like to give a shout out to Julie and Brian Doyle (and their kids) who looked after Constance for me, which enabled me to partake fully in the Manhattan festivities.
Jeff
Sunday, March 2, 2008
My first blog entry
This is a first ever for me: I've never "blogged" before. I had read about blogs in my alumnae magazine, an article for which I was grateful. It gave a whole who, what, when, where, why and how for blogs so I finally learned (in theory) about them. I've been directed to others' blogs that have shown up in searches, but here I am contributing! I laugh because I was always the kid to ask when my father's watch needed to be set, when the video camera wouldn't work right, when something didn't record on VHS, etc. I was technologically advanced...up to year 2000 when I "retired" from graduate school and had my second baby. It seems a lot has happened in the field since Y2K! The description no longer fits at all!
Jeff, I enjoy your contributions. I got a laugh from the math joke. Like Monica, I'm hoping any and all will post some things (consecutive or not). It makes for fun reading.
As far as random family news, the following comes to mind:
*We enjoyed the baptism and celebration of Andrew Tong Myung Kim last Sunday. Even Kateri and Elizabeth came to NJ from Boston. (Steve and Maura couldn't make it b/c of illness.) The rest of the family was there, and it was a good time. He's a cutie, and it was great party. Sue and Tony were the Godparents. We all gathered around the baptismal font for the pouring of the water. I think the average age of our group must have been around 9 years old, and the average height somewhere around 46 inches. I still don't know what Tong Myung actually means, but Joe and Max have been going around the house saying it. I think they just enjoy the sound. Every now and then I'll hear "Tong Myung, Tong Myung".
I had fun playing "Set" at the party with a few of my kids and some of my nieces and nephews. Anyone with kids ages 5+, this is a great game that's sort of mathematically based. The object is to look for sets that either match or are opposite in shape, shade, count and color. My classmates at Hopkins used to play it obsessively in our student lounge. So it's one of those games an adults can play with children, all try their best and a kid may still win! It also travels well since it's just a special deck of cards. [No, I don't have stock in the company, I just really like the game and thought you might too!]
*Wednesday, March 5, will be the first birthday of my daughter, Teresa Anne. How the year has flown by! I've read it takes a full year to get used to a new family member. We're certainly "used" to her, but I wouldn't quite say the house runs smoothly or anything! It's mostly contained chaos. Teresa doesn't walk yet--all the Harkins have proved to be late walkers--but she's learned to push a large toy truck around the house. She's quite a sight, walking hunched over this monster truck, and she zooms around. It cracks me up that she can't walk on her own but can go so fast and change directions so competently with this truck. She loves it! The other thing she's becoming known for is her growl. She used to say "HI!", but ever since she learned to roar at these new dinosaurs we got, she's gotten her signals crossed. She now growls/roars whenever she's happy. She loves baby dolls and growls (like an angry dog) at them! We haven't heard "Hi" in a long time now.
*We just got back from a week visiting Mike's parents in Colorado. We had a great trip, although traveling with the whole gang wasn't simple. Next time we go, I think we'll try to fly LaGuardia to Denver and drive from Denver to Colorado Springs rather than do LaGuardia to Minneapolis, Minneapolis to Colorado Springs like we did. It had been 3 years since we were there. I enjoy seeing pictures in their house: it's like a big scrapbook of our lives. Whereas most of the pictures we have up at home are only the current ones, his parents have spread the new and the old out throughout the house so we see our wedding pictures, all the babies' pictures and many of the photos we've sent through the years, all on display. The highlight of the trip was our 3 day expedition at Ski Cooper. Everybody skied except Teresa. Little guys learn so quickly on skis not much bigger than my shoes. Jerry and Pete are little madmen and are drawn to any path that goes through trees. We opened the place and closed it down each day, and those two didn't stop except for about a 15 minute lunch. With fresh snow and temps near forty, the conditions were ideal all three days. Mike's parents ski too, and the four adults just alternated watching Teresa in the lodge. Yours truly had a great time and definitely is now nursing the skiing bug! The other trip highlight for the kids was washing the car when we got back from the mountains. As Mike's Dad put it, "It's a half hour job, but with help it takes an hour and a half." Max could barely stand up, he was so gleeful squirting the hose. ...I wouldn't be surprised if their house is still shaking a week after the visit ended! It's used to a lot more quiet than we provided, but I think the grandparents had at least as much fun as the kids.
*This is the first time in several years that Mike isn't toying with a career change. This year he has a new attitude toward teaching Math that's more accepting and positive. He admits to enjoying it more now that he's decided to stay in for the long-haul. I'm delighted and hope it continues. This is his sixth year at Mahopac High; his eighth year teaching in New York.
*Mae is in half-day Kindergarten. She informed us at dinner last night that sometimes when her teacher "doesn't have anything planned for the class", she lets Mae read a book to them. Mae gets to choose the book, and she sits in the teacher's chair while her classmates sit on the carpet. She's read at least 4 books to them to date. I would love to be a fly on that wall!
Duty calls, but I've enjoyed my first blog contribution. If we all do our part, I think this will be a great way to stay in touch with the family.
P.S. I'm sad that we're scheduled to miss the family picnic at Ken and Audra's July 11. That's the date of Mike's 20 year high school reunion, and we're supposed to return to CO for another visit. After 3 years away, we'll go twice in one year. Go figure!
Jeff, I enjoy your contributions. I got a laugh from the math joke. Like Monica, I'm hoping any and all will post some things (consecutive or not). It makes for fun reading.
As far as random family news, the following comes to mind:
*We enjoyed the baptism and celebration of Andrew Tong Myung Kim last Sunday. Even Kateri and Elizabeth came to NJ from Boston. (Steve and Maura couldn't make it b/c of illness.) The rest of the family was there, and it was a good time. He's a cutie, and it was great party. Sue and Tony were the Godparents. We all gathered around the baptismal font for the pouring of the water. I think the average age of our group must have been around 9 years old, and the average height somewhere around 46 inches. I still don't know what Tong Myung actually means, but Joe and Max have been going around the house saying it. I think they just enjoy the sound. Every now and then I'll hear "Tong Myung, Tong Myung".
I had fun playing "Set" at the party with a few of my kids and some of my nieces and nephews. Anyone with kids ages 5+, this is a great game that's sort of mathematically based. The object is to look for sets that either match or are opposite in shape, shade, count and color. My classmates at Hopkins used to play it obsessively in our student lounge. So it's one of those games an adults can play with children, all try their best and a kid may still win! It also travels well since it's just a special deck of cards. [No, I don't have stock in the company, I just really like the game and thought you might too!]
*Wednesday, March 5, will be the first birthday of my daughter, Teresa Anne. How the year has flown by! I've read it takes a full year to get used to a new family member. We're certainly "used" to her, but I wouldn't quite say the house runs smoothly or anything! It's mostly contained chaos. Teresa doesn't walk yet--all the Harkins have proved to be late walkers--but she's learned to push a large toy truck around the house. She's quite a sight, walking hunched over this monster truck, and she zooms around. It cracks me up that she can't walk on her own but can go so fast and change directions so competently with this truck. She loves it! The other thing she's becoming known for is her growl. She used to say "HI!", but ever since she learned to roar at these new dinosaurs we got, she's gotten her signals crossed. She now growls/roars whenever she's happy. She loves baby dolls and growls (like an angry dog) at them! We haven't heard "Hi" in a long time now.
*We just got back from a week visiting Mike's parents in Colorado. We had a great trip, although traveling with the whole gang wasn't simple. Next time we go, I think we'll try to fly LaGuardia to Denver and drive from Denver to Colorado Springs rather than do LaGuardia to Minneapolis, Minneapolis to Colorado Springs like we did. It had been 3 years since we were there. I enjoy seeing pictures in their house: it's like a big scrapbook of our lives. Whereas most of the pictures we have up at home are only the current ones, his parents have spread the new and the old out throughout the house so we see our wedding pictures, all the babies' pictures and many of the photos we've sent through the years, all on display. The highlight of the trip was our 3 day expedition at Ski Cooper. Everybody skied except Teresa. Little guys learn so quickly on skis not much bigger than my shoes. Jerry and Pete are little madmen and are drawn to any path that goes through trees. We opened the place and closed it down each day, and those two didn't stop except for about a 15 minute lunch. With fresh snow and temps near forty, the conditions were ideal all three days. Mike's parents ski too, and the four adults just alternated watching Teresa in the lodge. Yours truly had a great time and definitely is now nursing the skiing bug! The other trip highlight for the kids was washing the car when we got back from the mountains. As Mike's Dad put it, "It's a half hour job, but with help it takes an hour and a half." Max could barely stand up, he was so gleeful squirting the hose. ...I wouldn't be surprised if their house is still shaking a week after the visit ended! It's used to a lot more quiet than we provided, but I think the grandparents had at least as much fun as the kids.
*This is the first time in several years that Mike isn't toying with a career change. This year he has a new attitude toward teaching Math that's more accepting and positive. He admits to enjoying it more now that he's decided to stay in for the long-haul. I'm delighted and hope it continues. This is his sixth year at Mahopac High; his eighth year teaching in New York.
*Mae is in half-day Kindergarten. She informed us at dinner last night that sometimes when her teacher "doesn't have anything planned for the class", she lets Mae read a book to them. Mae gets to choose the book, and she sits in the teacher's chair while her classmates sit on the carpet. She's read at least 4 books to them to date. I would love to be a fly on that wall!
Duty calls, but I've enjoyed my first blog contribution. If we all do our part, I think this will be a great way to stay in touch with the family.
P.S. I'm sad that we're scheduled to miss the family picnic at Ken and Audra's July 11. That's the date of Mike's 20 year high school reunion, and we're supposed to return to CO for another visit. After 3 years away, we'll go twice in one year. Go figure!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Math for Maryanne
I figured if a stupid mail joke about evolution sparked such interesting discussion on healthcare, I could try a misogynisitic joke on the blog and see what happens. Plus I know Maryanne loves math problems, so maybe she will have something to add...
Thursday, February 28, 2008
How do I make this BLOG my...
Opening Screen?
If we do that, we will use it more, and cut down on e-mails to the world.
Doug Sr.
If we do that, we will use it more, and cut down on e-mails to the world.
Doug Sr.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
So, this is a blog!
I've heard about these, and I've even read some, but this is my first official blog posting! I have a lot of people I would like to thank - the Academy, my wife, my 7th grade English teacher...
Seriously, though, thank you to Monica for setting up the blog and thank you to all the Browns whose recent e-mails have made for some fun and interesting reading.
Hope to be in touch more soon!
Chris Brown (Dennis and Fran's son; lives in Baltimore with wife, Jenny; slightly taller and better looking than his younger brother, Phil)
Seriously, though, thank you to Monica for setting up the blog and thank you to all the Browns whose recent e-mails have made for some fun and interesting reading.
Hope to be in touch more soon!
Chris Brown (Dennis and Fran's son; lives in Baltimore with wife, Jenny; slightly taller and better looking than his younger brother, Phil)
getting my toe in the water
Ok, I managed to get on board but I don't know how to navigate around this thing. Monica, you said you were posting all of the emails, so how do I see them?? could not figure that out. I am wondering if the blog will be like gym equipment which seems like a wonderful idea and then slowly begins to be neglected. time will tell. I am on the board of a 50 million dollar foundation whose mission is to provide healthcare to all residents of Connecticut. It intends to do this thru public education and agitation and organizing to change the laws and change the crazy quilt delivery system at the same time. A very complicated undertaking which becomes more complicated the more you know. Makes sense for something which accounts for between 20 and 30 % of our GNP. Six dimensional chess anyone?Our previous discussion was instructive . Good luck with this endeavor.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Generation X
I'm pretty sure that we'll be losing a certain number of the "gang" in this transfer from mail technology to blog...
I just wanted to get a post up here to thank Monica for putting this together. Inspite of Maryanne's objections, I'll try to post at least a little something from time to time, even if it is the simple boring facts of life, and even if that means that I have consecutive posts.
I'm out in Denver currently, part of my agenda here was supposed to be welcoming a new member to my team, but my company is the target of a friendly takeover, and hiring is frozen for the time being. I feel really bad for the person who was supposed to start working for us,, since she is currently in the mortgage industry and her office is closing down at the end of March. (This is not the opening salvo on a debate on federal regulation and oversight of the financial markets, it's just a little comment on my day to day...). I can only imagine how happy she was two weeks ago when I told her that she had been selected for the job opening, and that I'd be fedexing her the papers to sign the next day. Instead of Fedexing the papers the next day, I had to call her and tell her that there was a hiring freeze... talk about bursting someone's bubble.
Well, here's the first guest post on Monica's blog.
Let's see if this thing has any legs...
I just wanted to get a post up here to thank Monica for putting this together. Inspite of Maryanne's objections, I'll try to post at least a little something from time to time, even if it is the simple boring facts of life, and even if that means that I have consecutive posts.
I'm out in Denver currently, part of my agenda here was supposed to be welcoming a new member to my team, but my company is the target of a friendly takeover, and hiring is frozen for the time being. I feel really bad for the person who was supposed to start working for us,, since she is currently in the mortgage industry and her office is closing down at the end of March. (This is not the opening salvo on a debate on federal regulation and oversight of the financial markets, it's just a little comment on my day to day...). I can only imagine how happy she was two weeks ago when I told her that she had been selected for the job opening, and that I'd be fedexing her the papers to sign the next day. Instead of Fedexing the papers the next day, I had to call her and tell her that there was a hiring freeze... talk about bursting someone's bubble.
Well, here's the first guest post on Monica's blog.
Let's see if this thing has any legs...
Monday, February 25, 2008
First Post
Browns all,
For lack of a better name, I took the original subject line of 50+ emails from that chain. I will post all of them here.
Looking forward to hearing from everyone - especially the thus far silent ones.
Love, Monica
For lack of a better name, I took the original subject line of 50+ emails from that chain. I will post all of them here.
Looking forward to hearing from everyone - especially the thus far silent ones.
Love, Monica
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)