Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
FoxNews names names in subprime mortgage scandal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs
See how these individuals were involved:
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MS)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Treasury Secretary John Snow
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
Monday, October 20, 2008
Breitbart caught misrepresenting the facts
Archbishop criticizes Obama, Catholic allies
Where is the factual, impartial coverage?? This statement suggests that Archbishop Chaput's position excludes consideration of any issue other than abortion, which is a misrepresentation of Chaput's (and the Church's) position. The Church teaches that all these issues are important, but they are NOT all equally important. There is a hierarchy of issues and rights, and some are more foundational that others. Some are so important -such as those regarding the deliberate taking of human life- that they take precedence over secondary issues.
Is protection of the spotted owl really as important as protecting human beings from being deliberately exterminated? Both are important, but they are not equally important.
For example, it is because of this hierarchy of rights that our right to own private property does not include the right to make other persons our property as slaves. Individuals have an absolute right not to be treated as property. Such foundational rights set limits to secondary rights. These foundational rights deserve primary attention when we elect individuals to public office. Do they recognize and respect these certain, inalienable rights? If not, how can they be trusted to respect or defend any rights at all, and on what basis?
Breitbart... misrepresenting facts -whether through carelessness or premeditation- is not journalism, it's manipulation.
"While Chaput has won praise from traditionalist Catholics for stressing opposition to abortion as a foundational voting issue, voices on the Catholic left have sought to apply church teachings to war, poverty, the environment and other issues."
Where is the factual, impartial coverage?? This statement suggests that Archbishop Chaput's position excludes consideration of any issue other than abortion, which is a misrepresentation of Chaput's (and the Church's) position. The Church teaches that all these issues are important, but they are NOT all equally important. There is a hierarchy of issues and rights, and some are more foundational that others. Some are so important -such as those regarding the deliberate taking of human life- that they take precedence over secondary issues.
Is protection of the spotted owl really as important as protecting human beings from being deliberately exterminated? Both are important, but they are not equally important.
For example, it is because of this hierarchy of rights that our right to own private property does not include the right to make other persons our property as slaves. Individuals have an absolute right not to be treated as property. Such foundational rights set limits to secondary rights. These foundational rights deserve primary attention when we elect individuals to public office. Do they recognize and respect these certain, inalienable rights? If not, how can they be trusted to respect or defend any rights at all, and on what basis?
Breitbart... misrepresenting facts -whether through carelessness or premeditation- is not journalism, it's manipulation.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Quasi-socialist compares domestic socialist to foreign socialists
McCain compares Obama to European socialists - Yahoo! News
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders in Europe on Saturday, saying his rival wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to give money to the poor."
This is very true, and one of the points that Mr. McCain needs to hammer energetically until the election, if he is to have a chance of winning. But it's a tough case for him to make, because his own policies are badly polluted with plans to "spread the wealth".
For example: his mortgage buy-out plan, and his health-care plan.
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders in Europe on Saturday, saying his rival wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to give money to the poor."
This is very true, and one of the points that Mr. McCain needs to hammer energetically until the election, if he is to have a chance of winning. But it's a tough case for him to make, because his own policies are badly polluted with plans to "spread the wealth".
For example: his mortgage buy-out plan, and his health-care plan.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Warren Buffet: a good time to invest in stocks
Op-Ed Contributor - Buy American. I Am. - NYTimes.com:
Warren Buffet: "I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over."
Warren Buffet: "I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over."
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama gaining support from felons, cartoon characters, and the deceased
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama caught on video: he intends to redistribute YOUR earnings
OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - New York Post
In response to a plumber who asked whether Barack Obama's policies would raise his taxes, Obama replied they would.
He continued, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
In response to a plumber who asked whether Barack Obama's policies would raise his taxes, Obama replied they would.
He continued, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Monday, October 13, 2008
What kind of man is Barack Hussein Obama?
Personal Aside: The 3 Questions that Could Decide the Election—and No They’re Not Issue Hairsplitting.
Excerpt from Tom Roeser's blog posting of 10/9/2008:
...End of excerpt.
No man who would repeatedly deny protection to babies who survive "unsuccessful" abortions can be trusted with presidential power: the power to enforce or disregard law, to appoint justices, to wage war, to formulate public policy. Such power should only ever go to a person who understands the highest purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of every human person at every stage of life... even those with no vote and no money.
Excerpt from Tom Roeser's blog posting of 10/9/2008:
- What sort of man is it who four straight times…as chairman of Senate Judiciary… killed the “Born Alive” bill in the Illinois Senate…thus depriving babies born alive from botched abortions to receive nutrition and medical care?
Answer: A craven, rudderless opportunistic trimmer with no fixed principles who has always placed his own opportunistic career advancement ahead of anything else including human life.
- What sort of man is it who sits in a church for 20 years while his pastor…his good friend…god damns the United States of America? And who then throws his pastor under the bus when it gets hot?
Answer: The same. A craven, rudderless, opportunistic trimmer with no fixed principles who has always placed his own career ahead of anything else including his once firm friends whom he later saw as impediments to his political career which he placed ahead of any other factor.
- What sort of man is it who buddies with an undisguised, unrepentant terrorist (who never apologized for bombing the Pentagon) and who used this association in the early days to advance himself by gaining a foundation chairmanship and other benefits-throwing Billy Ayres under the bus when it became advantageous…Axelrod, the Artful Dodger, declaring that Obama never knew of Ayres’ connection because Obama was 3 years old when Ayres bombed the Pentagon?
Answer: A craven, rudderless, opportunistic trimmer with no fixed principles who has always placed his political career ahead of anything else including his once firm friends whom he later saw as impediments to his political career which he placed ahead of any other factor-including love of country.
...End of excerpt.
No man who would repeatedly deny protection to babies who survive "unsuccessful" abortions can be trusted with presidential power: the power to enforce or disregard law, to appoint justices, to wage war, to formulate public policy. Such power should only ever go to a person who understands the highest purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of every human person at every stage of life... even those with no vote and no money.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Believe the anger, John
Anger Is Crowd's Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally
"...McCain advisers dismissed the crowd's angry tone as an exception and not representative of most of the campaign's events."
Senator McCain, You should heed that anger and dismiss those advisers who downplay it. Anger and a desire for justice are profound and widespread, and are focused especially upon those in the Congress and executive branch who brought about this economic collapse. I don't think this flash of anger is a fleeting thing that can or should be glossed over. It signals something of greater significance, something that will not dissipate without being addressed.
A sleeping giant has awakened to find his house in shambles, plundered by pirates. He's not likely to be appeased by some token tax cuts while chaos reigns. His fury will drive him neither to rest nor relent until he halts the rape of the nation's wealth, prosecutes the pirates, and restores order to his home.
"...McCain advisers dismissed the crowd's angry tone as an exception and not representative of most of the campaign's events."
Senator McCain, You should heed that anger and dismiss those advisers who downplay it. Anger and a desire for justice are profound and widespread, and are focused especially upon those in the Congress and executive branch who brought about this economic collapse. I don't think this flash of anger is a fleeting thing that can or should be glossed over. It signals something of greater significance, something that will not dissipate without being addressed.
A sleeping giant has awakened to find his house in shambles, plundered by pirates. He's not likely to be appeased by some token tax cuts while chaos reigns. His fury will drive him neither to rest nor relent until he halts the rape of the nation's wealth, prosecutes the pirates, and restores order to his home.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The cost of socialist policies
World finance chiefs heading for Washington for crunch talks
For years the federal carrot and stick program -mortgage lending guarantees coupled with the class-baiting dogma that minority home ownership was "disproportionately low"- pressured lenders to make loans that they otherwise would not have risked making.
Once this engine of capital redistribution was in place, it was ripe for exploitation.
Lenders milked it for quick profits. High-risk borrowers milked it for more expensive homes than they really could afford. Congressmen milked it for votes, campaign contributions, liberal credentials, and sometimes favors of an even less savory sort.
Numerous lenders permitted the irresponsible federal policy and opportunity for quick profits to override good judgment. They made millions of high risk loans to borrowers, and neither lenders nor borrowers seemed really to care whether the loans could or would be repaid.
Lenders weren't overly concerned about this, since federal loan guarantees meant that ultimately the lenders weren't gambling with their own money. The government saw to it that these these loans were purchased from the lenders, their true risk camouflaged, and the resulting toxic investments funneled back into the economic food chain. A time bomb was formed and its fuse lit by a combination of bad government policy, market forces, greed, recklessness, and even fraud on the part of government officials, lenders, and borrowers. The default rates on these loans was enormous, yet the engine roared ahead unchecked.
The socialist dogma used to justify such widespread, high-risk lending was that if some individuals can't afford to buy homes, then it is government's job to force others to subsidize the cost of providing them. Such heavy-handed meddling in the lending market meant that many bad borrowers would receive loans, and this diversion of capital meant that many good potential borrowers were denied loans, while others simply paid more for the loans they obtained.
Now the time bomb has exploded. Banks are collapsing, people are losing homes, and the radius of destruction expands. Predictably, congressmen blame their opposing parties. But let's not waste time blaming each other, they say: It's time to fix the problem! Yes, the federal government, rarely content to leave bad enough alone, has stepped in with another scheme: Let's reward the guilty and punish the innocent with yet another gigantic redistribution of capital, controlled by our new demigod, the Trillion Dollar Czar.
The show's far from over. John McCain, supposedly the more conservative of our two presidential candidates, now has suggested that the federal government should go further to "stabilize the housing market", buying up homeowners' failing mortgages and replacing them with new "manageable" loans, as decreed by some magical process to be administered by bloated bureaucrats inhabiting some new bloated bureaucracy. Undoubtedly these will include many of the same meddlers (and their disciples) who brought about this current crisis in the first place.
Yet history shows that government schemes to control or "stabilize" market prices of any commodity -including homes- almost always cause far more harm than good, and prove to be giant failures and destroyers of wealth due to their unintended negative consequences. (For an eye-opening explanation, see the classic "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.)
This plan, if adopted, will be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current disaster which is already unfolding.
For years the federal carrot and stick program -mortgage lending guarantees coupled with the class-baiting dogma that minority home ownership was "disproportionately low"- pressured lenders to make loans that they otherwise would not have risked making.
Once this engine of capital redistribution was in place, it was ripe for exploitation.
Lenders milked it for quick profits. High-risk borrowers milked it for more expensive homes than they really could afford. Congressmen milked it for votes, campaign contributions, liberal credentials, and sometimes favors of an even less savory sort.
Numerous lenders permitted the irresponsible federal policy and opportunity for quick profits to override good judgment. They made millions of high risk loans to borrowers, and neither lenders nor borrowers seemed really to care whether the loans could or would be repaid.
Lenders weren't overly concerned about this, since federal loan guarantees meant that ultimately the lenders weren't gambling with their own money. The government saw to it that these these loans were purchased from the lenders, their true risk camouflaged, and the resulting toxic investments funneled back into the economic food chain. A time bomb was formed and its fuse lit by a combination of bad government policy, market forces, greed, recklessness, and even fraud on the part of government officials, lenders, and borrowers. The default rates on these loans was enormous, yet the engine roared ahead unchecked.
The socialist dogma used to justify such widespread, high-risk lending was that if some individuals can't afford to buy homes, then it is government's job to force others to subsidize the cost of providing them. Such heavy-handed meddling in the lending market meant that many bad borrowers would receive loans, and this diversion of capital meant that many good potential borrowers were denied loans, while others simply paid more for the loans they obtained.
Now the time bomb has exploded. Banks are collapsing, people are losing homes, and the radius of destruction expands. Predictably, congressmen blame their opposing parties. But let's not waste time blaming each other, they say: It's time to fix the problem! Yes, the federal government, rarely content to leave bad enough alone, has stepped in with another scheme: Let's reward the guilty and punish the innocent with yet another gigantic redistribution of capital, controlled by our new demigod, the Trillion Dollar Czar.
The show's far from over. John McCain, supposedly the more conservative of our two presidential candidates, now has suggested that the federal government should go further to "stabilize the housing market", buying up homeowners' failing mortgages and replacing them with new "manageable" loans, as decreed by some magical process to be administered by bloated bureaucrats inhabiting some new bloated bureaucracy. Undoubtedly these will include many of the same meddlers (and their disciples) who brought about this current crisis in the first place.
Yet history shows that government schemes to control or "stabilize" market prices of any commodity -including homes- almost always cause far more harm than good, and prove to be giant failures and destroyers of wealth due to their unintended negative consequences. (For an eye-opening explanation, see the classic "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.)
This plan, if adopted, will be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current disaster which is already unfolding.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Bishops upbraid Biden for his false and cowardly abortion statements
Bishops criticize Biden's abortion statements -My Way News
Recently some of our Catholic bishops have been speaking out more and more clearly, forcefully, and publicly in defense of human life. Well done! Keep it up! And let's keep praying that politicians who call themselves Catholic have the integrity to be guided by their sincere beliefs.
Recently some of our Catholic bishops have been speaking out more and more clearly, forcefully, and publicly in defense of human life. Well done! Keep it up! And let's keep praying that politicians who call themselves Catholic have the integrity to be guided by their sincere beliefs.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Professor Charo refuses to defend her position
straightdope: The ethics of accidential vs. deliberate abortion
No answer from Professor Charo, the noted expert in ethics, on the seemingly simple, Yes/No question of whether deliberate abortion is ethically equivalent to accidental, spontaneous abortion.
Yes, that's the same Professor Alta Robin Charo who, according to her online biography, "is a member of the boards of the Alan Guttmacher Institute and... the National Medical Advisory Committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America...".
I'm not on any prestigious boards like those, so of course I should know better than to dare have an opinion on such complicated ethical questions as whether the deliberate killing of a human being is morally equivalent to an unintended, accidental death.
But that won't stop me from stating the obvious. A person doesn't need to be a professor of ethics to understand that killing the defenseless is despicable. Denying the unborn access to the banquet table of human rights is evil. Dr. Charo benefits (richly) from the fruits of that table, but doesn't seem to think everyone else is entitled to such benefits.
And trying to publicly obscure such simple truths with sophistry -and declining to honestly defend one's position on such matters- is cowardly and worthy of public reproach.
No answer from Professor Charo, the noted expert in ethics, on the seemingly simple, Yes/No question of whether deliberate abortion is ethically equivalent to accidental, spontaneous abortion.
Yes, that's the same Professor Alta Robin Charo who, according to her online biography, "is a member of the boards of the Alan Guttmacher Institute and... the National Medical Advisory Committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America...".
I'm not on any prestigious boards like those, so of course I should know better than to dare have an opinion on such complicated ethical questions as whether the deliberate killing of a human being is morally equivalent to an unintended, accidental death.
But that won't stop me from stating the obvious. A person doesn't need to be a professor of ethics to understand that killing the defenseless is despicable. Denying the unborn access to the banquet table of human rights is evil. Dr. Charo benefits (richly) from the fruits of that table, but doesn't seem to think everyone else is entitled to such benefits.
And trying to publicly obscure such simple truths with sophistry -and declining to honestly defend one's position on such matters- is cowardly and worthy of public reproach.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
All black people -including Barak Obama- should understand
Black people were systematically enslaved and oppressed in the United States for hundreds of years. Their humanity was denied, their human rights trampled.
You'd think that with such a history, black people would be quick to denounce and combat other forms of oppression that, like slavery, deny both the humanity and basic rights of the vulnerable.
Why do so many white people tolerate legalized elective abortion? Despite slavery's history perhaps whites are still slow to recognize oppression, at least when the oppression is praised by some as a sacred right and enshrined by unjust law... just as slavery was enshrined and defended as a right.
But why do so many black people tolerate and even defend legalized elective abortion? Why don't they recognize it for what it is, and denounce it and all its defenders, both black and white?
That to me is a great mystery.
“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“A nation that kills its children is a nation without hope.” -Pope John Paul II
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The ethics of accidential vs. deliberate abortion
To:
R. Alta Charo
Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics,
University of Wisconsin Law School
Dear Professor Charo,
Last week I invited You to clarify Your comments quoted in the recent USA Today article, Differences surface in McCain-Obama Christian forum
I didn’t receive a response from You, but perhaps my question was not clear enough to merit a response. I'll try to be clearer by cutting to the ethical crux of the matter:
Is it indeed Your position that deliberate, procured abortion is ethically equivalent to accidental, spontaneous abortion?
Because of Your expertise in the areas of bioethics and reproductive rights law, I'm very interested to learn Your perspective on this important question.
Thank You for Your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Robin.
R. Alta Charo
Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics,
University of Wisconsin Law School
Dear Professor Charo,
Last week I invited You to clarify Your comments quoted in the recent USA Today article, Differences surface in McCain-Obama Christian forum
I didn’t receive a response from You, but perhaps my question was not clear enough to merit a response. I'll try to be clearer by cutting to the ethical crux of the matter:
Is it indeed Your position that deliberate, procured abortion is ethically equivalent to accidental, spontaneous abortion?
Because of Your expertise in the areas of bioethics and reproductive rights law, I'm very interested to learn Your perspective on this important question.
Thank You for Your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Robin.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Dr. Charo, do You believe a procured abortion is equivalent ethically to an accidental miscarriage?
Dear Professor Charo,
I am disappointed that Your response (of 18 August) was nothing more meaningful than a link to an article about Luc Bovens' Journal of Medical Ethics paper on the "rhythm method". The medical basis for his assertions is widely controverted, but that's beside the point. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/health/13rhyt.html)
Any reasonable person can distinguish clear moral differences between these scenarios:
1) a couple intends to avoid conception, has sexual intercourse at a time they have scientifically but erroneously determined to be infertile. They conceive, but the child dies through unintentional miscarriage;
2) a couple deliberately conceives multiple children, and then deliberately targets some for implantation and others for extermination;
3) a scientist deliberately conceives multiple children, then subjects them to mutilating experiments, finally destroying them.
Your quotation in the USA Today article seems to imply that pro-lifers, in order to be "consistent", must oppose on ethical grounds anything that results in the death of human embryos, regardless of whether the deaths are unintended or deliberate. Is this really what You are implying? Would You please clarify?
Best regards,
John Robin.
I am disappointed that Your response (of 18 August) was nothing more meaningful than a link to an article about Luc Bovens' Journal of Medical Ethics paper on the "rhythm method". The medical basis for his assertions is widely controverted, but that's beside the point. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/health/13rhyt.html)
Any reasonable person can distinguish clear moral differences between these scenarios:
1) a couple intends to avoid conception, has sexual intercourse at a time they have scientifically but erroneously determined to be infertile. They conceive, but the child dies through unintentional miscarriage;
2) a couple deliberately conceives multiple children, and then deliberately targets some for implantation and others for extermination;
3) a scientist deliberately conceives multiple children, then subjects them to mutilating experiments, finally destroying them.
Your quotation in the USA Today article seems to imply that pro-lifers, in order to be "consistent", must oppose on ethical grounds anything that results in the death of human embryos, regardless of whether the deaths are unintended or deliberate. Is this really what You are implying? Would You please clarify?
Best regards,
John Robin.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Natural family planning NOT ethically equivalent to embryonic stem cell research
Re: Differences surface in McCain-Obama Christian forum
To: R. Alta Charo, professor of law and ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dear Professor Charo,
USA Today quoted You, "If (McCain) believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research, IVF (in vitro fertilization) and even the so-called rhythm method."
If this quote is accurate, then it’s only two-thirds right. Certainly, the inalienable rights of a newly conceived human being ought to be protected, and embryonic stem cell research and IVF result in terrible violations of these rights.
However, the “rhythm method” and other forms of natural family planning involving periodic abstinence (such as the highly effective “Creighton Model”) involve acts of a much different sort, acts that do not result in injury or death to any human being. Couples who practice periodic abstinence exercise their reproductive powers in a responsible and loving way, without trying to manipulate, circumvent, or destroy either the nature of the sexual act or its natural consequences, namely conception and childbirth.
By contrast, IVF and embryonic stem cell research subject newly conceived human beings to manipulation and death by experimentation and selective extermination. Even if these activities are carried out for good motives, such as to further medical research or bring children to an infertile couple, they are ethically reprehensible because they involve the exploitation and killing of one class of human beings in order to obtain some benefit for another class of human beings.
It is no coincidence that couples who practice periodic abstinence as a means of regulating conception and childbirth tend to be strongly “pro-life”, believing that from the moment of conception, human beings have inalienable rights which must be protected by any just society. Those who hold such a position stand ethically on high ground.
To: R. Alta Charo, professor of law and ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dear Professor Charo,
USA Today quoted You, "If (McCain) believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research, IVF (in vitro fertilization) and even the so-called rhythm method."
If this quote is accurate, then it’s only two-thirds right. Certainly, the inalienable rights of a newly conceived human being ought to be protected, and embryonic stem cell research and IVF result in terrible violations of these rights.
However, the “rhythm method” and other forms of natural family planning involving periodic abstinence (such as the highly effective “Creighton Model”) involve acts of a much different sort, acts that do not result in injury or death to any human being. Couples who practice periodic abstinence exercise their reproductive powers in a responsible and loving way, without trying to manipulate, circumvent, or destroy either the nature of the sexual act or its natural consequences, namely conception and childbirth.
By contrast, IVF and embryonic stem cell research subject newly conceived human beings to manipulation and death by experimentation and selective extermination. Even if these activities are carried out for good motives, such as to further medical research or bring children to an infertile couple, they are ethically reprehensible because they involve the exploitation and killing of one class of human beings in order to obtain some benefit for another class of human beings.
It is no coincidence that couples who practice periodic abstinence as a means of regulating conception and childbirth tend to be strongly “pro-life”, believing that from the moment of conception, human beings have inalienable rights which must be protected by any just society. Those who hold such a position stand ethically on high ground.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Thinking of getting a vasectomy?
Lately I've heard several radio ads for a Chicago-area clinic encouraging men to have a vasectomy. If You're thinking about it, I urge You to research this carefully, and don't rely only on the information provided by those selling these procedures.
Why do I care? No, I haven't had this procedure and never will. There are strong philosophical and moral reasons why no man -especially no Christian (much less a Catholic) man- should consider sterilizing himself. But aside from those reasons I feel sorry for the men who will have this operation and regret it purely because of the chronic physical pain that afflicts more than a few. So I just want to point to some medical info You should be aware of if You're considering paying someone to sterilize You.
"Pain, Diabetes And Dementia -Research Highlights Medical Risks of Vasectomies"
National Catholic Register, August 12-18, 2007
-Read about what may be strong link between vasectomy and a form of dementia called primary progressive aphasia (PPA).
If It Works, Don't Fix It!
Vasectomy Information Home Page.
-Lots of information and references regarding the risks of vasectomy.
"Vasectomy: A pain in the b***s?"
Malehealth
"...few realise that at up to one in three can expect to suffer long-term testicular pain."
"Testicular Pain Following Vasectomy: A Review of Postvasectomy Pain Syndrome"
Christiansen and Sandlow, Journal of Andrology, 2002.
The University of Iowa Department of Urology, Iowa City, Iowa.
"...a small percentage of postvasectomy patients (less than 10%) develop PVPS."
(What if You're in the unlucky 10%?)
LongTerm Complications after a Vasectomy Operation
ABC Radio National
"I had a terrible experience of the pain over a period of a few days, just continuing to get worse and worse and worse and worse. Until I reached the point where I was writhing on the floor in agony; it was dreadful..."
Also see the following:
Journal of Urology
* J Urol 1997 Oct;158(4):1528. Re: Vasectomy reversal for treatment of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
* Br J Urol 1997 Feb;79(2):269-270; The incidence of post-vasectomy chronic testicular pain and the role of nerve stripping (denervation) of the spermatic cord in its management.
* J Urol 1996 Apr;155(4):1284-1286; Questionnaire-based outcomes study of nononcological post-vasectomy complications.
* Br J Urol 1992 Feb;69(2):188-191; Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy.
* Br J Urol 1991 Oct;68(4):407-413; Epididymectomy for post-vasectomy pain: histological review.
* J Urol 1985 Sep;134(3):494-497; A late post-vasectomy syndrome.
Why do I care? No, I haven't had this procedure and never will. There are strong philosophical and moral reasons why no man -especially no Christian (much less a Catholic) man- should consider sterilizing himself. But aside from those reasons I feel sorry for the men who will have this operation and regret it purely because of the chronic physical pain that afflicts more than a few. So I just want to point to some medical info You should be aware of if You're considering paying someone to sterilize You.
"Pain, Diabetes And Dementia -Research Highlights Medical Risks of Vasectomies"
National Catholic Register, August 12-18, 2007
-Read about what may be strong link between vasectomy and a form of dementia called primary progressive aphasia (PPA).
If It Works, Don't Fix It!
Vasectomy Information Home Page.
-Lots of information and references regarding the risks of vasectomy.
"Vasectomy: A pain in the b***s?"
Malehealth
"...few realise that at up to one in three can expect to suffer long-term testicular pain."
"Testicular Pain Following Vasectomy: A Review of Postvasectomy Pain Syndrome"
Christiansen and Sandlow, Journal of Andrology, 2002.
The University of Iowa Department of Urology, Iowa City, Iowa.
"...a small percentage of postvasectomy patients (less than 10%) develop PVPS."
(What if You're in the unlucky 10%?)
LongTerm Complications after a Vasectomy Operation
ABC Radio National
"I had a terrible experience of the pain over a period of a few days, just continuing to get worse and worse and worse and worse. Until I reached the point where I was writhing on the floor in agony; it was dreadful..."
Also see the following:
Journal of Urology
* J Urol 1997 Oct;158(4):1528. Re: Vasectomy reversal for treatment of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
* Br J Urol 1997 Feb;79(2):269-270; The incidence of post-vasectomy chronic testicular pain and the role of nerve stripping (denervation) of the spermatic cord in its management.
* J Urol 1996 Apr;155(4):1284-1286; Questionnaire-based outcomes study of nononcological post-vasectomy complications.
* Br J Urol 1992 Feb;69(2):188-191; Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy.
* Br J Urol 1991 Oct;68(4):407-413; Epididymectomy for post-vasectomy pain: histological review.
* J Urol 1985 Sep;134(3):494-497; A late post-vasectomy syndrome.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Trent Lott has had enough of free speech
Senator Lott: 'Opposition must cease'
Senator Lott, I'd like You to publicly explain Your unacceptable comment, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
You do not seem to remember that You are an elected representative of constituents whose right to free speech -and free press- is protected by the Constitution. Your job is to defend the Constitution and represent Your constituents.
Your remarks suggest You would rather throttle the press and silence opposition, as a despot suppressing a troublesome peasantry.
Your comments and and many of Your colleagues are helping voters realize that "Republican" increasingly means not "conservatism", but "oligarchy".
Senator Lott, I'd like You to publicly explain Your unacceptable comment, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
You do not seem to remember that You are an elected representative of constituents whose right to free speech -and free press- is protected by the Constitution. Your job is to defend the Constitution and represent Your constituents.
Your remarks suggest You would rather throttle the press and silence opposition, as a despot suppressing a troublesome peasantry.
Your comments and and many of Your colleagues are helping voters realize that "Republican" increasingly means not "conservatism", but "oligarchy".
Friday, May 11, 2007
Giuliani defends murder to win White House
Giuliani Defends Stance on Abortion
Associated Press
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani forcefully reaffirmed his support for abortion rights on Friday and argued that his divergence from conservatives on the issue should not disqualify him from being the eventual GOP nominee.
"This is a matter of deep and profound judgment," he said in a speech at Houston Baptist University. "It's a matter of morals. It's a matter of your interpretation of how laws should operate, your interpretation of how respect for the rights of others should operate. But in a country like ours ... I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice."
...despite his belief that abortion was "morally wrong" — he believes the decision should ultimately be left to individuals and their decisions should be respected.
Mr. Giuliani argues that killing unborn children is "morally wrong", but is to be protected as a decision that rightly belongs to the domain of individual choice, and these "decisions should be respected". Why aren't other forms of murder also to be defended as matters of "individual choice", Rudy? Is there no political advantage to be gained in defending more visible forms of homicide?
The Declaration of Independence loudly proclaims the truth:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The most basic and important purpose of government -and the highest duty of those who serve in positions of government- is to protect and uphold the basic rights of the individuals comprising the society. The most basic and first of these rights is life: that is, to be permitted to live, free from the unjust assault of aggressors and their apologists.
Mr. Giuliani's defends as a matter of private preference the deliberate killing of the most defenseless in our society. A country that will not summon the courage to protect its children from lethal aggression is a country with a death wish.
Mr. Giuliani's position on abortion is barbaric, and reveals he is not worthy of public office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
