Site update

traffic12.jpgThanks to you, October saw this blog's biggest gain ever in visitors, resulting in its most trafficked month ever. We came thisclose to having 60,000 unique visitors (59,978 to be exact) and had 2.24 million hits. That's all hard for me to comprehend, and I think I'll get rattled if I try....

Helping maintain order is our Mod(erator) Squad, to whom I am inexpressibly indebted: Bethany, Jasper, Lauren, Mary Kay (MK), and Valerie. They spend as much time on the site as I do, and I appreciate them very much.

And awhile back Jasper took on the added task of finding the Quote of Day every day, which has also freed up my time. He does such a good job that I often tell him I'm converting the quote he found into a post, please find another!

At this time I'm pleased to announce the addition of another member of the Mod Squad, Jacqueline, who has added wit and wisdom to the site in the comments section for quite some time. I've also been bugging her to write some posts, so maybe you'll see her authoring as well as commenting soon. Welcome, Jacqueline!

Other odds and ends

Reader and commenter Rosie took this picture at the October 27 pro-life rally at the Aurora Planned Parenthood of Stanek site bloggers (l to r) Rosie, MK, Kristen, PL Laura and various and sundry children:

gang.jpg

Finally, I'm told if you go to BottRadioNetwork.net Saturday at 7:30a or 2:30p, Sunday at 6a or 3p, or Monday at 2p (all times CST), you can hear an interview I taped with Mr. Bott about my column this week, "Inside Planned Parenthood."

Thanks again to all of you for visiting and participating on this blog, dedicated to advancing the sanctity of life.

UPDATE, 4:10p: Dan, a commenter from the other side, has reminded me I owe thanks to the pro-choice commenters (I'll not call you pro-aborts just this once to be nice) for stimulating the conversation, which is absolutely true. We do appreciate reading what you have to say. Iron sharpens iron, as Solomon said. And, hey, stick around long enough, and we'll win you over.


Comments:

I was wondering when you'd add Jacqueline! (I was hoping you would, Jill.)

Plus, that's a great picture. :D

Posted by: Lyssie at November 2, 2007 2:18 PM


*stares at picture*

Wait.

Hold on.

DEMOCRATS use little children to advance their agenda?

Posted by: Erin at November 2, 2007 2:20 PM


It's so great to finally be able to put a face to Rosie, MK, Kristen, and PL Laura.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 2, 2007 2:22 PM


What do the different colors on the graph represent? How does it break down?

Posted by: Laura at November 2, 2007 2:25 PM


Orange: unique visitors
Yellow: number of visits per visitor
Blue: pages viewed per visit
Aqua: hits
Green: bandwidth

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 2:31 PM


You are all so beautiful! It's so great to see faces to put with names! :)

Jacqueline, welcome to the Mod squad!!!

Posted by: Bethany at November 2, 2007 2:33 PM


Jill, it is amazing to see how the site has grown since January!

Posted by: Bethany at November 2, 2007 2:34 PM


I second what Bethany just said!

Posted by: heather at November 2, 2007 2:35 PM


I know, Bethany. That's when it really began to take off. I just looked back to my first month, April 2005. That month I had 18 unique visitors and 301 hits. lol!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 2:38 PM


Wow, Jill. That is just wonderful!

Posted by: Bethany at November 2, 2007 2:39 PM


You and the Mod Squad are a major reason for the growth, Bethany. Seriously. You keep the conversation going. And you're always so encouraging.

(And Heather, too... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 2:42 PM


Jill,

You have the best Pro-Life Blog on the web! Keep it up!

Mike

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2007 2:46 PM


Jill,

I have been providing links to your website on a regular basis on Catholic.com Forums.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2919420

Mike

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2007 2:57 PM


Jacque is a spicey one!! Glad to see she'll be coming aboard.

Posted by: heather at November 2, 2007 3:04 PM


Wow, y'all's a good lookin' bunch, I must say!

Little update on Lauren:

We talked last night and she sends her love. The wireless card in her laptop ceased working when she moved from her home and in with her in-laws in the interim (she and her husband are moving in January to finish college at a university that offers more of what they need for their respective career plans). She apologizes to everyone about the inability to email and doesn't want anyone thinking she's abandoned her post. She will return after things settle down and she's technologically able. If anyone has a message to get to her, I'll let her know.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:06 PM


Lauren, best of luck! We'll see you soon!

Posted by: heather at November 2, 2007 3:07 PM


Jill has earned her traffic because of her reporting. Congratulations, Jill!

And thanks all for your warm welcome. I have no clue what I'm doing. :D

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:09 PM


Jacque:

Congrats on joining the squad! Don't worry, I don't know what I am doing half the time. (wow, did I just set myself up for some harassment!)

My appoligies to the squad and everyone on the blog....I have been very busy with trying to get a new format to my website and my son is having some problems in school. This is taking up the majority of my time. I promise to be back on a regular basis when things calm down.

I miss everyone!

I like the picture by the way. What a good looking bunch!

Posted by: valerie at November 2, 2007 3:17 PM


DEMOCRATS use little children to advance their agenda?

Those children aren't being used to advance an agenda. They're being supervised by parents who have values and they are being taught those values at the same time.

I take my baby brothers out to prayer vigils all the time, and not always just because they need to be supervised. In fact, most of the time I ask their mother to take them as a way of moulding their little characters to care about other people. We're not using them at all, but training them up in the way they should go.

When I was at Terri Schiavo's vigil in 2003, I heard a child impatiently ask his mother when they were leaving. She replied, "We don't go home. We're staying here all night. That's how we show people that we love Terri." The child didn't complain after that. This is a little boy that was taught the importance of self-sacrifice. I'll always remember that story because it was an impetus to get my little ones involved in mercy work: stocking the food pantry where I work, praying for the unborn.

People with values impart those values to their children. It's a duty as a parent. Imparting values and teaching right from wrong are part of raising children.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:20 PM


Mike, thanks! I do see when you post my stuff (I have google alerts sent to me to know when my name is used in glory or vain), and I appreciate it.

Jacque, thanks for the update on Lauren. That was very kind. As for not having a clue, Valerie's right, join the club. That must be what I sensed in you that attracted me.

Valerie, no worries, that's why we have a larger Mod Squad team now, to make sure someone's usually around to mind the store.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 3:22 PM


Ya'll are beautiful, just beautiful.

Jacque, after awhile doesn't the keyboard start smoking on you?

Ok, Kristen, Roseie, and PL Laura, tell me this:
Is MK as chatty offline as she is online?

Posted by: carder at November 2, 2007 3:24 PM


Carder, in a word: yes. And she's just as funny.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 3:27 PM


So...if a Democrat parent takes her kids to say a counter-protests or to the Choice march in Washington, it's bad, but when you guys do it, it's fine?

Posted by: Erin at November 2, 2007 3:29 PM


A good and fair question.

I suppose it all depends what each party wants to drive home into the little tykes.

Pro-life: No matter what, you're loved and valued.

Pro-choice: Depends on my valuation.

Posted by: carder at November 2, 2007 3:41 PM


Or another point:
Pro-life: Think of the others.

Pro-choice: Just think of yourself.

Pro-life: Hope!

Pro-choice: Despair.

Posted by: carder at November 2, 2007 3:44 PM


Pro-Choice Mom: "It depends on what my mood is when I find out I'm pregnant"

Child of Pro-Choice: Lucky to be alive!

Chelsea Clinton: VERY lucky to be alive!

Posted by: PL Laura at November 2, 2007 3:45 PM


So...if a Democrat parent takes her kids to say a counter-protests or to the Choice march in Washington, it's bad, but when you guys do it, it's fine?

And when did we say that? Our accusations of democrats exploiting children have been about abortion, medical research and expanded SCHIP, not about parents taking their children on demonstrations exercising their constitutional rights.

But I'll be honest with you, Erin. When I saw children at the pro-abortion march back in 2004, I pitied them. I was thinking, "Your parents are marching to tell the whole world that you were disposable---that you are only alive because they *just happened* to want you at the time when you were conceived. All of you narrowly escaped the suction machine, and yet you're being taught to support the killing of others. How sad." Taking children to such events is imparting the absences of morals and values, but I support the parent's rights to include their children.

(But I'll also say that those marches, with the profane words, profane signs and general profanity is no place for children.)

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:51 PM


Jacque, please pass along the message that I miss her very much and hope all is well!! I can't wait to hear from her again. She's such a sweet person.

Posted by: Bethany at November 2, 2007 3:54 PM


Kudos, Carder. And yes, The letters are fading off my keys. :)

To continue:

Pro-Life: I'm a product of love.

Pro-Choice: I could have killed to enable a consequence-free sex life for my parents.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:54 PM


Heather & Bethany: I will pass along your messages to Lauren! She's love to hear from you!

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:56 PM


Jill, I dunno if it's all the mod squad, I mean come on.

You gotta give some credit to us hell-raisers ;)


I'm sure some of the reason people come on is to watch the entertaining/fascinating/etc arguments.

I know I make popcorn when there's an intense argument going on ;)

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 3:56 PM


Dan, you're absolutely right. I cringe when someone asks one of you, "Why do come to this site only to argue?" I love you coming to this site, even if only to argue. It sharpens our skills, and ultimately, given time and fair thought, we'll win you over.

And yes, your thoughts do make an interesting read, that's for sure... :)

I appreciate you, Laura, Enigma, Erin, Doug, Sally, etc., very much. I miss Cameron and Les. I hate the thought of preaching solely to the choir.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 4:03 PM


Dan -

"I know I make popcorn when there's an intense argument going on ;)"


HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Something we have in common.

Are the pigs flying?

Posted by: valerie at November 2, 2007 4:03 PM


lol valerie.


Jill, at this point I think I can confidently say you guys won't win me over. I come for the challenge of the argument, and (why I have no idea) the frustration of the argument.

And of course, to see the other side (even if I already had been there).

We had a nice discussion in my US Legal class today. And he tried to argue the right to privacy was complete bull and doesnt exist. Pointing to the bill of rights as back up for right to privacy is fun :D

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 4:10 PM


and valerie, nope, still walking.

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 4:11 PM


Dan, I just officially gave your side credit.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 4:15 PM


I noticed Jill, lol. Thank you.

And FINALLY called pro-choice, took long enough. Too bad it won't last.

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 4:16 PM


Is MK as chatty offline as she is online?

And I always thought of myself as the strong silent type...hmmmmmm.

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 4:31 PM


mk, certainly not here

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 4:32 PM


And FINALLY called pro-choice, took long enough. Too bad it won't last.

I don't mind being called anti-abortion. Why do you mind being called pro-abortion? Is there something wrong with abortion?

I love the second amendment. I don't mind being called pro-gun, although I don't personally own one and I'm not a big fan of guns. I don't get up in arms (no pun intended) and say, "I'm not pro-gun. Nobody is pro-gun. I'm pro the choice to own a gun. I don't think everyone should have a gun or be forced to have a gun, but people should have the choice to have a gun if they want one." That's all implied! No need to say it.

The only reason why all of the pro-aborts hate being labeled as such is because even they recognize something inherently wrong in an abortion. So much so, they even hate the word. They're pro-"choice," as if a choice can't mean anything.

So man up, Dan. You're a pro-abort. If you hate that label, rethink why you support the "choice" the abort in the first place.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 4:32 PM


jacq, im not pro gun, but i am for the right for an american to buy guns. I myslef will never have a gun, nor do I encourage everyone to go out and by a gun, therefore I am not pro gun. I do think people should have that right, and it is in the constitution. But knowing that I am not "for guns" i would not want to be called pro gun, nor would I want to be called anti-gun


I am pro choice because i dont think everyone should be forced to get an abortion, i am not for abortion, nor am i for forced pregnancies. I am for the right for a woman to CHOOSE whether to have a pregnancy or to have an abortion.


And no, pro implies for it, period, no restrictions, etc. I like restrictions in each case. I like gun control, i dont believe that a mentally unstable person should get that gun, just as I dont think a fetus should be aborted post viability unless the health of the mother is at stake. Im neither pro or anti gun or abortion

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 4:41 PM


and honestly jacqueline, I personally am desensitized to the title at this point, since I hear it everyday from you guys. It means next to nothing to me. Is it annoying? yeah. Does it really matter in the scheme of things? no

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 4:42 PM


Dan,
The fat lady ain't singin' yet.

Jill,
When do I get my raise?

Val,
Enough with the excuses, come back already.

Bethany,
There are no words.

Jacquie,
As my future daughter in law, let me take this opportunity to welcome you to both Jill's family, and mine.

Carder,
What can I say that I haven't already said?

Erin,
You don't have any kids to exploit. But if you did, I'd say bring 'em. Let them decide for themselves which side of the street they want to stand. The side with 3 kids, or the side with 3,000.

Bobby,
Where's your picture? (pre hairy Novemeber please.)

To all my pro choice friends and enemies. If you weren't here, I wouldn't be either. I love each and every one of you. You keep it real.

Doug,
Go ahead. I'd like to see you take this post apart! I dare you!

Lauren,
You continue to be in my prayers. We miss you terribly.

SoMG, Laura, Sally and Esther,
Just when I thought it was safe to back in the water...;)

Leah, Erin, Rae, Lyssie, Midnite, Less, Danielle,
JKeller, Jana, Jess...
VIVA LA BREAKFAST CLUB!!!!!


Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 4:44 PM


Dan,

To clarify

"I am for the right for a woman to CHOOSE whether to have a pregnancy or to have an abortion."

is this because abortion is neither good nor bad but a morally neutral act? Or is it wrong most of the time but justified in other cases, like some would say about war? I wanna make sure I understand your position.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 2, 2007 4:46 PM


Okay MK. Here is a pic of me from the math department website. I hate the way I look with short hair.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 2, 2007 4:50 PM


Dan said, "I am pro choice because i dont think everyone should be forced to get an abortion, i am not for abortion, nor am i for forced pregnancies. I am for the right for a woman to CHOOSE whether to have a pregnancy or to have an abortion."

The woman is already pregnant!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2007 4:51 PM


Hiya - Since basically all those kids are mine I wouldn't say I'm using them. I am teaching them my values and my son, the one holding the yellow signs, was WAY more into the rally than anyone else there. If anything he used me for the ride there. :)

Posted by: Kristen at November 2, 2007 4:55 PM


Bobby,

WOW!

I'm soooooo old!

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 4:55 PM


Plus, MK, my face isn't hairy yet, but I'll share a before and after pic with you at the end of the month if you wish.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 2, 2007 4:55 PM


Bobby,

Great,
and I'll post a pic of my legs...but not right before dinner. I'll pretend that I'm not shaving them for November. (The truth is I'm not shaving them cuz it's winter, but I'll lie)

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 4:58 PM


Great, okay, whatever gets you to join the cause. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 2, 2007 5:01 PM


Wait, wait, wait...

I like the picture, but where are all the men who dominate the pro-life movement and tell women what to do?

Come on ladies, take off your masks and show us who you really are. I know there is at least one man in there somewhere . . .

Posted by: Andrew at November 2, 2007 5:05 PM


Bobby- I give up. I hang my head in shame and ask where the name Besbus came from and why you decided to nickname your daughter that.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 5:11 PM


Yay, I love this post. *Breakfast club hugs to MK and the rest of the crew*

By the way, MK, my boyfriend, the president of the liberal arts undergraduate council here at school, is planning a trip possibly to Chicago to collect money for pediatric cancer research. It's for THON (FTK!!! for the kids!), a huge organization here at Penn State that raised over 1 million dollars last year for the cause. I told him I'm going on his next trip to help raise money, so if the next trip is to Chicago, I'll let you know. :D


*Lyssie*

Posted by: Lyssie at November 2, 2007 5:12 PM


Come on ladies, take off your masks and show us who you really are. I know there is at least one man in there somewhere . . .

Posted by: Andrew at November 2, 2007 5:05 PM

The man was taking the picture! And my hubby had already gone to get the car... :(

Posted by: Kristen at November 2, 2007 5:14 PM


Well, without further ado, I'm off to take a shower, and go with said boyfriend to the SARAH SILVERMAN comedy show. I know you guys dislike her wholeheartedly, but I must say I find much of her stuff to be appealing to my...childish tastes. Sorry. :(

I'm basically immune to smut. Having been socialized around men pretty much my whole life, I can deal with it. *sheepish look*

Posted by: Lyssie at November 2, 2007 5:15 PM


huh, well now i feel bad. I used to come to this site a lot, but in the month of October I came only a few..... I bet if I came you would have been well over 60,000. hehehe ;) I think I am back, at least for the time being.

Posted by: JM at November 2, 2007 5:17 PM


Bobby, justification remains to the woman. If she feels the need to get an abortion, the option should be available to do so. As for abortion morality, its a complicated issue, and I personally see it as a shade of gray.

And Anon, I miss spoke, er, typed. "have" should be "continue". My mistake, but calling me out for a mistype is kind of childish dont you think? Sure joking about it is fun, but no need to go after me for it. (Or perhaps I am misreading and you were simply trying to help me out. Hard to tell on the 'net)

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 5:17 PM


It is great to be able to put a face with a name. You guys are beautiful inside and out. Thanks for making the newbies feel welcome.

Posted by: carrie at November 2, 2007 5:22 PM


JM,

And I for one am glad to see you.


Lyssie,

Rae says she might come to visit and so does Midnite. Have you three ever met yet? It would be so awesome if you could come at the same time!

I could be the house mom!

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 5:32 PM


YAY HOUSE MOM!! I haven't met either, but I've been talking to both extensively via this here intarweb. :D

*Lyss*

Posted by: Lyssie at November 2, 2007 5:41 PM


It's nice to put some faces with names :-)

I have been, for some reason, picturing Kristen as Kristen Chenoweth (even though I know a lot more Kriste(i)ns that I could have pictured her as). It's nice to know what she really looks like.

I guess it's not a rude comparison. Chenoweth is an awesome singer and possibly pro life (She's a strong Christian and Aaron Sorkin based the character of Harriet Hayes from "Studio 60" off of his real life relationship with her).

*sigh* I miss Studio 60 :-(

Posted by: JKeller at November 2, 2007 5:47 PM



To continue:

Pro-Life: I'm a product of love.

Pro-Choice: I could have killed to enable a consequence-free sex life for my parents.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 3:54 PM

Pre-Roe: Just made it before the judge dropped the gavel.

Posted by: hippie at November 2, 2007 5:49 PM


JKeller, I wouldn't mind looking like Kristen Chenoweth, nor would I mind having her voice. I can't carry a tune in a bucket.

Posted by: Kristen at November 2, 2007 5:50 PM


Dan-

Nah. Guns (like anything) have the potential to be used for evil, but they aren't intrinsicly evil. That's why pro-gun people never refer to themselves as "pro-choice to have guns" and take no issue with being called pro-gun.

Abortions are objectively evil which is why people want to dissassociate themselves from the word by labeling it as "choice," much as those who were pro-slavery identified themselves as pro-choice.

Note: I wouldn't oppose the term pro-choice if you'd have the balls to tack the name of the choice: ABORTION onto the label. "I'm pro-choice for abortion." But you guys can't even bear to go that far, can ya?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 5:52 PM


She's a strong Christian

That's debatable. She supports several abominations, I wouldn't be surprised in abortion was one of them.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 2, 2007 5:53 PM


True story from this Tuesday outside PP.

Man walks by after picking up his lunch from the sandwich shop.

He says, "I really appreciate what you are doing out here. My dad gave my mom the money for the abortion. She had the money in her hand and someone stopped her outside of PP and took her to pregnancy center. That is why I am here."

Posted by: hippie at November 2, 2007 5:54 PM


Jill,

"It sharpens our skills, and ultimately, given time and fair thought, we'll win you over."

Funny. The first part of that statement is why I come here as well.

As to the second part, sorry to disappoint, but it's really not going to happen.

Posted by: Enigma at November 2, 2007 5:57 PM


Are you referring to the "abomination" of not vehemently condemning homosexuals to hell?

Posted by: JKeller at November 2, 2007 6:02 PM


Oy Jacqueline! Have you tried listening to "Levi Weaver"? I recommended him to you last night.

I fink we needs to have a partay in hurrrrr...

*brings the appetizer eggrolls*

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 6:05 PM


*brings the Guitar Hero III*

Posted by: JKeller at November 2, 2007 6:07 PM


Erin, there is something inherently creepy in involving one's children in abortion advocacy work. It's like you're announcing to the world, "I thought about killing him, but decided to let him live." You're holding up your own child as somebody that draws breath only at your suffrance, that you could have just as rightly and easily decided to snuff.

It'd be like brining a Black friend to a KKK rally.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2007 6:12 PM


@JK: You have Guitar Hero III? I'm so bloody jealous it is not even funny.

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 6:14 PM


Oops! Forgot to fill out who I was. That last post was from me.

Posted by: Christina at November 2, 2007 6:15 PM


Today was my last day of physical therapy. I'm not cured, they just gave up! Stupid dog!!!

So I'm all about a PARTY!!!!

Jacquie,
I posted a pic of your future husband...did you see it?

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 6:39 PM


Did they really just give up on the physical therapy?

Daaaaaaaang.

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 6:49 PM


Well Rae,

They did what they could. The doc claims that eventually the quad with strengthen and I will be able to go down stairs like a normal person...scratch that...nothin' normal about me...but you know, alternating feet. Course he also told me I'd be running three months ago...

I'm 90% back to where I was...It'll have to do!

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 6:52 PM


90% is still an A! :-p

Huzzah!

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 6:53 PM


Haha, yeah I have GH3, I got it on Monday (I've already beaten it on Easy..LOL). I had a 10% off Best Buy coupon that expired that day so I decided I might as well go ahead and get it while I could save $10.

Posted by: JKeller at November 2, 2007 6:55 PM


An A? Really? Well, when you put it that way, what's a few stairs?

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 7:02 PM


@JK: I am still insidiously jealous. I wish I could steal my sibling's PS2 and weasel him into buying GHIII for his poor, poor college-student sister.

@MK: I consider A- to still be an "A". Stairs shmairs. Escalators rock. :-p

I just realized I can graduate in the Fall of '08.

Frick.

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 7:05 PM


Ooooohhhhh!!!! More celebrations! Can I come to your graduation party?

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 7:10 PM


OH MY FRITZ!

I need to come to Chicago on November 17th...I hope my parents will let me...

EEEP!

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 7:11 PM


If you want to, I doubt I'll have a grad party because it will be in the middle of December just before Christmas (that's when fall gradumutation is...and it's not even a real graduation, they just fork over the diploma, no fancy ceremony...thank Dios).

I have to actually look for a real job.

My brain is exploding.

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 7:13 PM


Fritz! And there is another thing in Chicago I need to go to in January!

Gosh darned concerts with artists I j'adore who refuse to come to Minneapolis!

*shakes fist*

Posted by: Rae at November 2, 2007 7:16 PM


November 17th it is...
Who are you seeing, and where is it?

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 7:33 PM


You could just move to chicago...

Posted by: mk at November 2, 2007 7:34 PM


MK -

"You could just move to chicago..."

I know this wasnt directed at me but.........

Tell my hubby to get that promotion so we can move up there all ready! I could help your dog find some brains! uggg.... I hate it here.

*pout*

Posted by: valerie at November 2, 2007 8:24 PM


Since everyone seems to be a bit off-topic...

I have a turtle. He needs a name. What is a good turtle name? =P

Posted by: Stephanie at November 2, 2007 8:42 PM


Jacqueline, as I said, I myself wouldn't want to be labeled pro-gun or anti-gun. But maybe I'm a minority there.

I would mind the adding of "for abortion" to the end except for two things:

1) it is absurdly long

2) we aren't just for abortion, pro choices are also for pregnancy (and the support of those kids after birth)

And you could say everything is evil if you really want to. Anyone can try to find a way to twist anything and make it evil.


And since when did people for slavery call themselves pro-choice? I dont recall that ever coming up in my history classes, nor did a search on the term's past give me anything about slavery.

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 8:56 PM


Franque.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 2, 2007 9:00 PM


Dan said: "And you could say everything is evil if you really want to. Anyone can try to find a way to twist anything and make it evil."

Yeah, man, it's really hard to twist reality into coming to the conclusion that killing babies is evil. You have to go through some crazy mental gymnastics and super convoluted logic to arrive at that idea.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 2, 2007 9:11 PM


Nice pic of all the babes....

Congratulations Jacque, its nice to have you on-board.

Dan, the liberals in Massachusetts have really gotten to you....

Posted by: jasper at November 2, 2007 9:49 PM


Jasper, no they really havent. I just am a liberal, and I will be a liberal. My mother is a moderate, and my dad's a conservative. Guess I'm the natural progression of things. I'm more liberal than most of my friends, kinda funny actually.

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 10:30 PM


Dan,

I generally consider myself liberal and don't balk at initiatives even expensive ones that promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and posterity.

However the burden that will be placed on you in the future as a taxpayer groaning under the weight of the enormous number of indigent elderly will likely test your resolve.

It is not impossible that you may someday yearn to share that burden with your 45 million missing "brothers and sisters" whose welfare was sacrificed for the liberty of those whom you will have the privilege of underwriting.

Bon courage.

Posted by: hippie at November 2, 2007 10:58 PM


Hippie, I can grown and moan all I want. That doesnt stop me from believing its worth it because its the right thing to do. Not to mention if I vote for/agree to it I really have no reason to complain.

If I think it's the right thing to do I do it. Do I sometimes choose wrong? Of course, I am human. But I do do my best to do what's right, and reliably follow through with it, even if it is (which lately, it has been) detrimental to me in some way. Even if I know I don't have to do it, I do, because I worry no one else will step up and help or get it done.

Maybe I'm a rarity or a minority, or unique, or whatever, but it's how I am. If I pay more in taxes so others have a shot at leading a good life, so be it.

Posted by: Dan at November 2, 2007 11:09 PM


I don't think you are such an anomaly. A friend was telling me about a book that showed cycling trends in generations. We saw the sacrifice of the WWII generation, then the small "silent generation" , then the materialism of the baby boomers. Then followed by the genXers who were more into people than institutions. According to the theory we are just about due for a cycle of less selfish folks. Couldn't be more timely.

Good night.

Posted by: hippie at November 2, 2007 11:38 PM


That book I mentioned
Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 (Paperback)
by Neil Howe (Author), William Strauss

http://www.amazon.com/Generations-History-Americas-Future-1584/dp/0688119123

Posted by: hippie at November 2, 2007 11:44 PM


Unrelated but important story:

Poll: Most OK Birth Control for Schools
By ALAN FRAM – November 2

WASHINGTON (AP) — People decisively favor letting their public schools provide birth control to students, but they also voice misgivings that divide them along generational, income and racial lines, a poll showed.

Sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many — 62 percent — said they believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage pregnancies.

"Kids are kids," said Danielle Kessenger, 39, a mother of three young children from Jacksonville, Fla., who supports providing contraceptives to those who request them. "I was a teenager once and parents don't know everything, though we think we do."

Yet most who support schools distributing contraceptives prefer that they go to children whose parents have consented. People are also closely divided over whether sex education and birth control are more effective than stressing morality and abstinence, and whether giving contraceptives to teenagers encourages them to have sexual intercourse.

"It's not the school's place to be parents," said Robert Shaw, 53, a telecommunications company manager from Duncanville, Texas. "For a school to provide birth control, it's almost like the school saying, 'You should go out and have sex.'"

Those surveyed were not asked to distinguish between giving contraceptives to boys or girls.

The survey was conducted in late October after a school board in Portland, Maine, voted to let a middle school health center provide students with full contraceptive services. The school's students are sixth- through eighth-graders, when most children are 11 to 13 years old, and do not have to tell their parents about services they receive.

Portland school officials plan to consider a proposal soon that would let parents forbid their children from receiving prescription contraceptives like birth control pills.

Teenage pregnancy rates have declined to about 75 per 1,000, down from a 1990 peak of 117, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research center. Still, nearly half of teens aged 15 to 19 report having had sex at least once, and almost 750,000 of them a year become pregnant.

The 67 percent in the AP poll who favor providing birth control to students include 37 percent who would limit it to those whose parents have consented, and 30 percent to all who ask.

Minorities, older and lower-earning people were likeliest to prefer requiring parental consent, while those favoring no restriction tended to be younger and from cities or suburbs. People who wanted schools to provide no birth control at all were likelier to be white and higher-income earners.

"Parents should be in on it," said Jennifer Johnson, 29, of Excel, Ala., a homemaker and mother of a school-age child. "Birth control is not saying you can have sex, it's protecting them if they decide to."

About 1,300 U.S. public schools with adolescent students — less than 2 percent of the total — have health centers staffed by a doctor or nurse practitioner who can write prescriptions, said spokeswoman Divya Mohan of the National Assembly of School-Based Health Care. About one in four of those provide condoms, other contraceptives, prescriptions or referrals, Mohan said.

Less than 1 percent of middle schools and nearly 5 percent of high schools make condoms available for students, said Nancy Brener, a health scientist with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Underlining the schisms over the issue, those saying sex education and birth control were better for reducing teen pregnancies outnumber people preferring morality and abstinence by a slim 51 percent to 46 percent.

Younger people were likelier to consider sex education and birth control the better way to limit teenage pregnancies, as were 64 percent of minorities and 47 percent of whites. Nearly seven in 10 white evangelicals opted for abstinence, along with about half of Catholics and Protestants.

In addition, 49 percent say providing teens with birth control would not encourage sexual intercourse and a virtually identical 46 percent said it would.

Though men and women have similar views about whether to provide contraceptives to students, women are likelier than men to think it will not encourage sexual intercourse, 55 percent to 43 percent.

Asked when young people should first be allowed to get birth control, ages 16 and 18 drew the most responses, while only a third chose age 15 or younger. Women's selections averaged just over age 16, slightly higher than men, while young people and Westerners preferred younger ages than others.

"I'd be pulling my kids out of that school," Ron Wrobel, 55, an engineer from Port Huron, Mich., said of the Maine middle school. He said birth control should be for teens at least 17 years old.

Mirroring the rift that has played out in countless battles in Congress, Democrats were likelier than Republicans to favor freer access to birth control and to have more faith that it reduces teenage pregnancies. Forty-five percent of Republicans — including 51 percent of GOP women — say birth control should not be provided to any students, compared to 19 percent of Democrats.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,004 adults from Oct. 23-25. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News survey specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

Posted by: Laura at November 3, 2007 1:49 AM


Why doesn't Coulter admit that when Mahmud went to Columbia, he was met with TONS of protestors, and it was made pretty clear that he was there to answer for his human rights violations.

I mean, just looking at the quote I can't help but raise an eyebrow. I can't believe that people think she's telling the truth? This is the woman who defended the Falwell 9/11 and gays quote. No joke.

btw, everybody look at my blog! Got my halloween pics up. Couldn't find birdseed last minute so I just winged it.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 3, 2007 3:44 AM


Stephanie,

Floyd. Or Stanley.

Posted by: mk at November 3, 2007 5:57 AM


pip, Ahmadinejad was actually allowed to speak at Columbia (which should probably be renamed "Colombia"). That's one better than Jim Gilchrist got, who was harassed and screamed at as he tried to say anything. But then I think it goes without saying that the far-left hates Gilchrist much more than it hates Ahmadinejad, and hates George Bush far more than it hates Osama bin Laden.

Laura, yes, if you ask the right kinds of people and design your questions correctly, you can get just about anything you want out of an opinion poll:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-vast-majority-want-schools-to-give-birth-control

Take a closer look at the poll. Only 30% agree with what the Maine school has done. And most of the people asked aren't even parents of school-aged children!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 3, 2007 8:14 AM


PIP, you look really cute as a pregnant Mom!....

btw: I noticed from the sign in the picture you're still supporting Obama....


"But then I think it goes without saying that the far-left hates Gilchrist much more than it hates Ahmadinejad, and hates George Bush far more than it hates Osama bin Laden."

So true John...

Posted by: jasper at November 3, 2007 9:28 AM


@Jasper and John: Nah, pretty sure I am not a fan of Ahmananutjob and bin Laden.

It's so funny watching you guys piss and moan about how stupid and how evil liberals are...you guys piss and moan as much as the darn Democrats do.

And I've always wondered something: The Communists were called "Reds" and were always represented with the color red. Republicans are represented as the color red. What a funny coincidence. :-p

Posted by: Rae at November 3, 2007 10:53 AM


Republicans both have legs.
Communists both have legs.

Hmmmm...Laura, what do you think?

Posted by: mk at November 3, 2007 11:47 AM


Awww MK, you killed my fun...

The Republicans toted about the Red Scare back in the 50's against communists...

The Democrats tote a "Red Scare" against the Republicans now with the whole war thing...

Posted by: Rae at November 3, 2007 11:52 AM


Ahmadinajahad was allowed to speak at Columbia to show people just how big of a nutjob he really. Look at how the president of the university phrased his introduction, obviously he in no way holds the guy in high regard. The thing about free speech is that it has to be extended to everyone, or no one. That's why the KKK can still hold public rallies, that's why the Westboro nutjobs can protest soldiers funerals.

And there have been plenty of Christian nutjobs allowed on my campus.

Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcUnwY2d5M0

Posted by: JKeller at November 3, 2007 11:56 AM


Plenty of pro choice nut logs too.

Posted by: heather at November 3, 2007 12:07 PM


I had no idea we go to the same school, Heather. What's your major?

Posted by: JKeller at November 3, 2007 12:09 PM


"But then I think it goes without saying that the far-left hates Gilchrist much more than it hates Ahmadinejad, and hates George Bush far more than it hates Osama bin Laden."
That's a ridiculous statement.

btw: I noticed from the sign in the picture you're still supporting Obama....
If it came down to Hillary or Obama, then Obama is it. He is an honest, good guy. At his rally he didn't even mention pro-choice or abortion, which leads me to believe that he will not be focusing too much on it. It's likely that Guliani will get the Republican vote so the issue will practically be null anyways.

"PIP, you look really cute as a pregnant Mom!...."
Why thank you!

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 3, 2007 12:49 PM


About Columbia, maybe you didn't hear what I said.
He was invited, but as a chance to answer to his human rights violations and other global issues. I am not sure whether you know about the introductory statement. Here you go: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/ahmadinejad2.html

As a matter of fact, there is a group of Jewish Iranians (among others) who said he was an "ungracious" host.

As you can see, Columbia wasn't handing him a cookie, but a chance to explain himself.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 3, 2007 1:11 PM


Yeah, Right on, JK

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 3, 2007 1:13 PM


Doug, Go ahead. I'd like to see you take this post apart! I dare you!

Dear MK,

Nought a problem did I have with it.

Posted by: Doug at November 3, 2007 1:46 PM


Stephanie, How about Torri the turtle. What about Timmy?

Posted by: heather at November 3, 2007 2:19 PM


Rae said: "It's so funny watching you guys piss and moan about how stupid and how evil liberals are...you guys piss and moan as much as the darn Democrats do."

Whatever you want to call them, I don't like people who want it to be legal to kill babies, want the state to sanctify homosexual acts, and are almost constantly attacking my Church. Call them "liberals", call them "Godless fanatics", call them "Democrats"... I don't really care what you call them.

Rae said: "And I've always wondered something: The Communists were called "Reds" and were always represented with the color red. Republicans are represented as the color red. What a funny coincidence. :-p"

It actually used to be the opposite. I don't know exactly when they switched, but red used to be for Dems and blue for the GOP. Although I don't see the coincidence in switching it, really, since some modern Democrats are indistinguishable from Communists, and all of the Democrat presidential candidates are socialists. The red color clearly belongs with them.

And pip, maybe you didn't hear what I said. The fact remains that Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak at Columbia while Gilcrist was not. Gilcrist probably would have been quite happy to allow some buffoon to go up on stage and tear him apart (which he likely only did to cover his rear after the public outcry against Columbia for inviting Ahmadinejad) before he got to speak, if it just meant that he actually would have been allowed to speak.

As I said, the fact remains that the terrorist got to say what he wanted to say while the American citizen concerned about our border security was not allowed to say anything. Does that sound like free speech to you?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 3, 2007 5:23 PM


@John: All I hear is "whine, whine, whine, whine, whine-whine-whine, whine."

Please, allow me to play the world's tiniest violin to comfort your righteous fury.

*rubs index and thumb together*

Posted by: Rae at November 3, 2007 5:36 PM


Alrighty Rae, I guess you don't care if innocent human beings are slaughtered, and if your family was being attacked, you'd just sit there with a big smile on your face. After all, better to be completely apathetic than to be a whiner.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 3, 2007 5:41 PM


I don't worry about my "family getting attacked" because I live in the middle of nowhere. We're pretty safe from terrorists because what terrorist in their right mind would waste time to attack Minnesota.

I do care about the unborn. But I don't really see how Ahmananutjob has to do with that. I also don't see how b*tching about it, name-calling and verbally abusing the opposition really does anything about that either.

And if you want to B*tch about apathy, go yell at my parents and the 60%+ folks in this country that don't bother voting, even during contested presidential elections.

I'm quite political thank you very much, to the point in which I annoy most folks I know in real life.

Posted by: Rae at November 3, 2007 5:49 PM


Rae, I wasn't talking about my family being physically attacked. I was talking about the constant verbal abuse against my Church. The loyal opposition does that quite a bit more than Ahmadinejad does. Rarely does a day go by in which our priests are not called a bunch of pedophiles, our Pope a Nazi, our Sacraments a joke, and our God a tyrant.

And I'd be happier if fewer people went to vote. People who don't know enough about the issues or don't care enough to feel compelled to vote shouldn't vote at all. You think I'm happy that for every informed person like me who votes, there are probably going to be ten nincompoops who say, "Gee, I think it would be cool to have a woman president, so I'll vote for Hillary", or "Gee, Rudy is a funny guy, he made me laugh when I saw him on TV, so I'll vote for Rudy"? Let me tell you, I'm not happy about it.

I also think that we should take the "R"s and "D"s off the ballots, and take away the "Republican" and "Democrat" levers so we don't get these party zombies who just go in there and vote 100% for their party without bothering to learn anything about any of the candidates.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 3, 2007 6:05 PM


"I also think that we should take the "R"s and "D"s off the ballots, and take away the "Republican" and "Democrat" levers so we don't get these party zombies who just go in there and vote 100% for their party without bothering to learn anything about any of the candidates."

Oh my fritz! I agree with you on that!

I wish more people would care about politics and be involved and vote, that's what I mean. The fact that people are apathetic and just vote for "whoever" for ships and giggles is disgusting. I wish people participated more in government and made our democracy more of a democracy.

Oops, I guess I misunderstood what you meant about "family". I don't think it's fair that people constantly criticize the Catholic Church. Sure, I don't always agree with the Church, but I think it's immature to call the Pope a Nazi or all priests pedophiles because it's not true.

But just a thought: atheists and agnostics are considered the least trustworthy "minority" in the US. Atheists and agnostics are considered to be less trustworthy than gay people and Muslims. Go figure.

Posted by: Rae at November 3, 2007 6:14 PM


John-
They made a mistake about Gilchrist, they chalk it up to a miscommunication, but that's not really the point, either. I don't think Columbia made the best decision, but it's not like Columbia just had this grand old time with inviting Mahmud. There were tons of people who disagreed with Columbia's decision, and the hosts were pretty harsh with him. It was an opportunity to see the difference between what he tells his people and what he tells ours. The point is, they weren't serving him on a platter, they were asking for him to explain himself. Let's just say he wasn't that "welcomed." They weren't giving him cookies. They were there to make him answer to himself.

"if your family was being attacked"
I know, those horrible evil gay people totally just want to turn you gay and marry on your front lawn. Be afraid, and if you drop the soap when you are showering with homosexuals, kick it to the corner. Otherwise they may prey on your weakness. Be very afraid. They are just like lions hunched below the grass, and once you look away they will pounce! Hug your family and build a bomb shelter, just in case!

"Rae, I wasn't talking about my family being physically attacked. I was talking about the constant verbal abuse against my Church"
What about the verbal abuse against everybody else? We can't call you on attacking people anymore then?

"Rarely does a day go by in which our priests are not called a bunch of pedophiles, our Pope a Nazi, our Sacraments a joke, and our God a tyrant."
How about calling homosexuals pedophiles, liberals communists, immigrants tyrants and education a joke? I agree that people need to lay off of the Church for things, and need to calm down, but it's not fair to be equally vicious with people who disagree with you politically, and then demand respect. It goes both ways.

"Oh my fritz! I agree with you on that!"
Same here. Abolish that system, PLEASE.

"The fact that people are apathetic and just vote for "whoever" for ships and giggles is disgusting"
I remember people voting for Bush because he was "better looking" than Al Gore. No joke.


"all of the Democrat presidential candidates are socialists"
tee hee...now I know to take almost everythign you say with a grain of salt.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 3, 2007 7:33 PM


pip, what are you, a member of the Columbia Apologist Squad? I'll take them seriously as soon as Gilcrist or another member of the Minutemen or a similar group is invited back to the school and given at least the same courtesy as the terrorist Ahmadinejad.

People who voted for Bush or anybody based on looks are too stupid to vote.

Newsflash, all of the Democrat presidential candidates advocate socialist health care. Maybe you need to read up before you go screw up the system further by voting ignorantly, tee hee.

Also, go ahead and attack me. I don't care if you attack me. Heck, I welcome your attacks! Go ahead; do what you liberals do best. Call me a fascist papist. Call my mother a whore. Call my family a bunch of mongrels.

But leave my Church alone. That's all I ask. Apparently it's far too much.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 3, 2007 10:19 PM


Rae,

you wrote

But just a thought: atheists and agnostics are considered the least trustworthy "minority" in the US. Atheists and agnostics are considered to be less trustworthy than gay people and Muslims. Go figure.

Posted by: Rae at November 3, 2007 6:14 PM

Wow. That is an interresting idea.

Did you see that in an article somewhere?

It makes me surmise that since a large percent of folks come from some religious background, which usually means certain behavioural constraints have been taught to them, then perhaps they see atheists or agnostics as perhaps a "lawless" group that just goes against whatever.

I know some very conservative atheists so not all are just contrarians.

If you remember where you saw that, I would like to see it.

Thanx

Posted by: hippie at November 3, 2007 10:56 PM


"pip, what are you, a member of the Columbia Apologist Squad?"
Did you listen to me? i said I didn't really approve of their actions, but Coulter got it completely wrong when she said he was "welcomed." He certainly was not "welcomed." Let me repeat: I think it was hypocritical of them to not invite Gilchrist but did invite him. See? Still, it was not the point I was trying to make. I was just saying that this is yet another reason why nobody should trust what she says. She skewed it to fit the way she wants to see it. I am trying to see it like it is. I know their reasoning, and saw what they did, but I still think on a personal level (and I'm not alone in this) they made the wrong decision by denying Gilchrist, even if it is just a communications problem. Would you like me to restate this again?

"People who voted for Bush or anybody based on looks are too stupid to vote."
I also thought it was pretty stupid.

"Newsflash, all of the Democrat presidential candidates advocate socialist health care. Maybe you need to read up before you go screw up the system further by voting ignorantly, tee hee."
I did notice that, sir. I am not stupid. However, socialization of healthcare does not make them a "socialist." Unless you want to call most of Europe and Canada socialists countries. As far as I know we can all name out loud the countries that are "socialist." That would also make anyone who doesn't want to abolish the public school system a socialist. Ha! I"m peeeing my panties, it is so funny!

"Also, go ahead and attack me. I don't care if you attack me.
Heck, I welcome your attacks! Go ahead; do what you liberals do best. Call me a fascist papist. Call my mother a whore. Call my family a bunch of mongrels.
But leave my Church alone. That's all I ask. Apparently it's far too much."

Sigh. We are getting nowhere. I'm SAYING (let's try this again) that whoever attacks the Church is out of line, but conservatives are just as guilty of name calling as liberals are.
I'll say it again.
I think that any name calling is bad, and I think ridiculing the Catholic Church is also bad. However, I would ALSO say that ridiculing the Islamic church is also bad, and equating liberals with athiests, and communists, and blah blah blah is also bad. They are equally bad. Any compliant you have based on personal attacks goes both ways.
Right?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 4, 2007 12:12 AM


Yo Jacque!

"Bobby- I give up. I hang my head in shame and ask where the name Besbus came from and why you decided to nickname your daughter that."

I've mentioned this story once before on this blog, but I'll write it again because it's so fun!

At about week 13 into my wife's pregnancy, she has this dream. In it she dreams that she is vacuuming and looks down and notices that she has a scar from a c-section. She says to me "Bobby, what happened? Did we have the baby?"

"Um, yeah I guess so" I reply.

"Well, what was it, a girl or a boy?" she asks.

"I'm pretty sure it was a girl" I say, nonchalantly.

"And where is she?" asks the wife.

"Still at the hospital, I suppose" comes my reply. At this point, my wife begins to panic, running around and screaming

"Well, we have to go down to the hospital, we have to bring her home, we have to name her-"

"Oh don't worry about that" I said. "I already named her."

"You did?" my wife responds. "What did you name her?"

"Beas." (rhythms with "peace") I said.

"Beas?" inquires the wife.

"Yeah, Beas." At this point, my wife is thinking to herself "okay, this isn't a big deal, it's his kid too; besides, it's kinda cute." She then asks

"How do you spell it?" to which I replied

"B-E-S-B-U-S. Beas."

So, alas, the "BUS" part of her name is silent. But the name stuck when we found out she was a girl, and we've been calling her Beas ever since. But she's due on Thursday, so hopefully by the end of this week we'll have an actual name to share with ya'll. Please pray for both the wife and the Besbus! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 4, 2007 10:05 AM


Hippie,

"Wow. That is an interresting idea. Did you see that in an article somewhere?"

I believe that its a statistic from a poll in which people rated atheists as least likely to share "their vision of society."

Here's the link:
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

"It makes me surmise that since a large percent of folks come from some religious background, which usually means certain behavioural constraints have been taught to them, then perhaps they see atheists or agnostics as perhaps a "lawless" group that just goes against whatever."

I agree. What amuses me is that religious people feel that atheists cannot have an objective standard of morality when, in fact, the religious people do not either. By and large, religions pick and choose which parts of their holy books discuss the morals that people should live by. They interpret just as much--if not more--than the atheists they accuse.

Posted by: Enigma at November 4, 2007 12:01 PM


Hi Enigma,

I couldn't get the link you posted.
I looked it up and found the study in a Sociology journal.

American Sociological Review, 2006 Vol 71 April p211-234
http://www.soc.umn.edu/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf

The study found that the religious folks seemed to view atheists as more different from themselves than those whose religion was different.

I think this is an interesting take on the trust issue which could also be relevant to other ways we perceive those who are different.

Many here defend the unborn. Some would say that since they are human they are "like me"

Some look at a cow and see a critter that feels pain and can't eat that cow because on some level it is "like me"

Some look at people of other races and say they are "like me" so they deserve to have the same rights and privileges that I have.

Generally it is easier to sympathize and empathize with those who are "like me" .

The real challenge is to feel for those who are not "like me"

Hence the difficulty for some to care about the lives of the unborn.


Here is an execerpt of the first few lines from the study.

"Who is like me and who is not? What kind of relationship do I have to those who are different? These are questions about boundaries, the symbolic distinctions that we make along multiple dimensions between ourselves and others. Such distinctions have social implications when they are widely recognized and accepted as legitimate dimensions of difference, and when they organize access to resources and opportunities (Lamont and Molnár 2002). Symbolic boundaries both include and exclude—by separating out those who do not belong, they draw together those who do (Alexander 1992; Taylor 2002). Symbolic distinctions drawn along lines of race, gender, sexuality, or social class are often studied because they lead to social exclusion for those in marginalized groups, and these distinctions form the basis for social inequality (Epstein 1988; Lamont and Fournier 1992).

Posted by: hippie at November 4, 2007 2:20 PM


Hippie,

That study uses the one in which I found. I don't know why the link doesn't work.

"The study found that the religious folks seemed to view atheists as more different from themselves than those whose religion was different."

Depressing, isn't it?

"Many here defend the unborn. Some would say that since they are human they are "like me.""

Being human does not mean that they can possess rights that human beings do not have.

"Generally it is easier to sympathize and empathize with those who are "like me" ."

Agreed. But that does not mean that one cannot move beyond.

"The real challenge is to feel for those who are not "like me." Hence the difficulty for some to care about the lives of the unborn."

You're taking that way too far and, ultimately, you analogy breaks down. It doesn't matter if fetuses are human or not. What matters is if that humanity gives them the right to impose upon another. Since that is not a right that any human possesses, any possible humanity of the fetus would be irrelevant.

Posted by: Enigma at November 4, 2007 8:57 PM


I'm not sure what analogy you mean because I didn't give an analogy.

I said that some people include cows, unborn babies, and people of other races in the "like me" category.

Others would exclude some or all of them from their "like me" category.

The study looked at who Americans trust and don't trust and analyzed the results based on the rationale that some folks don't trust atheists because they don't fit in their "like me" category.

The study authors referred to this notion as symbolic boundaries or distinctions. Specifically they wrote,

"Symbolic boundaries both include and exclude—by separating out those who do not belong,"

and

"Symbolic distinctions ... lead to social exclusion for those in marginalized groups, and these distinctions form the basis for social inequality"

As for social inequality, we know atheists have been descriminated against. Likewise others have as well. I assert that unborn babies are considered by some, but not all, to be different, and that difference is the basis for their being denied the most basic human right, life.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 4, 2007 9:35 PM


That anon was me.

Posted by: hippie at November 4, 2007 9:37 PM


"Newsflash, all of the Democrat presidential candidates advocate socialist health care."

doesn't the Catholic church advocate universal health care?

or are you a cafeteria Catholic?

Posted by: Hal at November 4, 2007 10:35 PM


dude, if Guiliani is voted in, abortion will be practically out of the main issues, that was the consensus from the previous posts..

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 4, 2007 10:44 PM


Rae: "And I've always wondered something: The Communists were called "Reds" and were always represented with the color red. Republicans are represented as the color red. What a funny coincidence. :-p"

Rae, if they gave the Democrats the Red color, it would be way too obvious and stick really well...

PIP: "If it came down to Hillary or Obama, then Obama is it. He is an honest, good guy"

"At his rally he didn't even mention pro-choice or abortion"

Of couse he didn't mention it, none of the Democrats do..... they have a guilty consience about it.

Posted by: jasper at November 4, 2007 10:59 PM


"Rae, if they gave the Democrats the Red color, it would be way too obvious and stick really well..."

*puts on lollerskates*

You should see this t-shirt I bought a few months ago:

http://www.threadless.com/product/383/The_Communist_Party#zoom

:)

Posted by: Rae at November 4, 2007 11:07 PM


jasper-

It's moot anyway if Guiliani is voted in for Republicans. What a great Catholic he is. It is your Catholic duty to vote though. Your decision- a prochoice candidate that will probably be a bad leader and one who is actually trying to change the system for the better and cares about the american people. We may disagree but if there is no way you would vote for any pro-choice candidate, maybe you just shouldn't vote if that turns up for you.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 5, 2007 12:56 AM