Jesus Christ! Save us! Have mercy on us ALL!

This article is the lead article right now on the San Francisco Chronicle’s homepage. It highlights an organization called Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. The title of their organization properly sums up the goal of the organzation: The extinction of the human race.

I don’t think I’ve read an article that made my blood boil more than this one in a LONG time. Even Mark Morford’s overly sexualized screeds don’t provoke me as much as this one did.

Included in the article full of blantent lies are the following blood boiling statements:

1. That the UN thinks that we’re having a population explosion. Actually, the UN thinks that the world population is going to peak in 2050 or so and is then headed for a disasterous decline. The article even quotes the UN Study that says this, but only points out the peak population (projected) in 2050 as 9.1 billion. Talk about dishonest! There is no mention in the article that the 9.1 figure is a peak and that we’re headed towards decline. It’s quoted in the “the world just keeps growing, 9.1 billion by 2050!” style.

2. The aticle directly contradicts itself regarding the goals of this organization. To quote, “It’s obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can’t be justified today.” (emphasis mine) says the founder of the organization who later is paraphrased as saying “In many ways, the idea of reducing the world’s population is as much about human quality of life as it is about the health of the planet.” HELLO!?! Do you have a stinking brain cell working in you! You’re arguing for the EXTINCTION of humanity. You are NOT arguing for population reduction. Hell, as referenced in the article, you’re slogan is “May we live long and die out”.

3. Also stated in the article “Knight takes care to point out that VHEMT isn’t anti-child.” YES YOU ARE! That’s EXACTLY what you are saying: “reproducing would bump you up into the Hummer-driver category.” as you say in the article. And we all know that you’re the type of person who thinks that anyone who drives a Hummer is pure evil.

As a cover for their “we don’t hate kids” crap, they talk about the benefits of adoption or to use his words: “In light of the number of species going extinct because of our increase, and the tens of thousands of children dying every day from preventable causes, there’s just no good reason to have a child,” adds Knight. “We have to ignore all those children to create another one. It’s like saying, ‘Well, they just don’t matter.’ But they do matter: They’re all children in the human family.”

See, this is a PERFECT example of a person seeing a GLIMMER of truth and explioting to an extreme that does a disservice to all of humanity. What do I think of when I think of people who choose not to have children and instead spend their whole lives helping others, mostly children? Why but of course I think of nuns. What else would I think of, being Catholic? Many orders of religious were setup for the sole purpose of helping the less fortunate. These are people who are willing to forgo a ‘normal’ life to live a life of service helping others.

But what do those who do not know God do when faced with the same realization?

They call for the extinction of the human race while telling us that they’re not anti-child.

That’s IT! Expect a fisk about this post in the next day or two…

OK, I know that my blog traffic is minimal at best so creating two blogs doesn’t seem like a great idea on the surface. However, I’m thinking that I write about two VERY different topics. I write about my Catholic faith and the way I see the world as a result of that faith and I write about Cal football. Should I be splitting this into two separate blogs?

The reason this comes to mind is that although most of my posting to date has been Cal related, I’ve been thinking of upping my level of Catholic blogging. I want to write more reflections on the scripture of the day again. I don’t want this to put off those who come to my blog for Cal info.

So here’s a quick survey for all of my readers:

1. Would you visit my blog more often it it was more focused on the subject you’re interested in?
2. Do you think there would be some who wouldn’t visit if the two subjects continued to be intermixed?
3. For those who would be or might be interested in both sides, would having two blogs be a big inconvenience, or do you use an RSS reader?

Thank you to all who take the time to answer…

Well, I voted against Cal for the first time all season and it was a good thing I did! It was the only thing that saved me from a losing weekend. The only game I really blew badly was the Washington vs. Arizona game. Washington laid the wood to Arizona and the Arizona offense apparantly went back into hiding. For that game my MVD was 42 because, although the winner won by 17 like I predicted, it was the other team. Ugh! Other than that, I missed the Stanford vs OSU game but called it about right: a close game with scores in the mid 20’s. I just picked the wrong team to win.

OK, so here are the updated numbers:

-Winning Percentage: 70.2% (down from 71.4% last week)
-MVD: 14.6 (down (that’s good) from 14.7 last week with additions of 7, 42 (ouch!), 7, 8 and 8)
-TPD: 15.5 (down (that’s good) from 16.0 past week with additions of 21, 0, 15, 12 and 6)

Tune in later in the week for my rivalry weekend predictions.

This article at Catholic Online is REALLY good. It speaks to the true nature of hypocrisy. The money quote is:

“Hypocrisy consists not in failing to practice what we preach, but in not believing what we preach.

I might fail to live up to my beliefs all day long, but still hold on to them as I strive to live up to them. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a cynical pretense of being a “good person” while disregarding the morality we claim to follow. The difference is being sorry, repenting, and striving forward. The hypocrite doesn’t care.”

I think he makes an important point we need to remember, particularly for those who struggle (key word) with sin.

I’m sure most of my readers have not heard about this, but there is a HUGE controversy brewing regarding Loretto high school in Sacramento. It started when Loretto hired a pro-abortion teacher who had been volunteering at Planned Parenthood as an escort (the people who go out into the parking lot to shield customers from protestors) up through this summer. Two months later, the school fired the teacher at the direction of the bishop. It later came out that a family with a student at Loretto, recognized her from various protests at the clinic. After escalating the issue from the teacher to to the school, they finally escalated the issue to the bishop, resulting in the firing. As if this didn’t make for enough controversy, the school has now expelled the student who’s family was responsible.

I had refrained from commenting on the topic before now because I was conflicted on a number of issues. First of all, I strongly stand for the bishops right to fire this teacher for her non-work-related support of Planned Parenthood. Catholic schools have a right to ensure the moral character of their employees and students reflect the beliefs of the Church. That said, I’m not so sure it was the RIGHT decision for the bishop to do that. From what little information has been circulated, the bishop never talked with the teacher (or had a representative do it) to determine what the teachers perspective was to determine if indeed she needed to be fired. Also, I wasn’t sure what the schools actual perspective on the subject was. Maybe after learning this they had intended to release the teacher at the end of the year. Or maybe they had a discussion with the teacher telling her what was expected of her including no longer volunteering at Planned Parenthood and not condoning abortion in the classroom.

But now that the student has been expelled, I’m more confident that the right thing was done by firing the teacher. It is clear that the school has no sympathy for the student and her family. There argument that the family “attacked” the school is pretty clearly hogwash unless you want to define “attacked” as going over their heads and asking the bishop to take action. This is particularly true since the family has been in contact with the school over the issue for two months now and it was not until the bishop stepped in that the student was expelled. Pure and simple, they’re angry that the family went over their heads. Furthermore, the language in their letter makes it pretty clear they have no sympathy for the family which leads me to believe that they do not seem to care about upholding the faith, at least on this issue.

You can be sure I’ll be writing a letter to the bishop asking him to reconsider taking further action against the school for expelling the student including the dismissal of the president and principle of the school if they refuse to properly justify the expulsion or repent and re-admit her to the school.

Finally, if you want the whole enchilada, you can go to the students blog. Her blog has become a lightning rod for both sides with much animosity and non-Christian behavior on both sides. Katelyn on the other hand has remained forthright and calm, refusing to take the bait that many (she averages a few hundred comments per post these days) throw her way.

People who know me really well know that I love tragic movies. If there is a guaranteed way to turn me off to a movie is to take a tragedy and force a happy ending on the end. There are so many movies that should be tragedies but everyone in Hollywood fears that there movie won’t sell if they don’t wrap it up in a happy ending. What crap!

I’m so bad at wanting a tragedy that when I watch a movie that is indeed a tragedy, I almost can’t help but let out a victorious “YES!”

I’ve often thought about why I like a good tragedy but have had difficulty putting a fairly clear emotion into words. The following quote from this post at the Internet Monk blog touches on one of the key reasons I like a tragedy:

“Ever go to a church website these days? Or look at a promotional publication or ad for a church that wants to grow? (I am starting to get angry, on cue, at the mention of the phrase “church growth.” It encapsulates almost everything vile.) Ever look at the pictures on the banner? Young people. Everywhere. Healthy. Gorgeous. Laughing. Children. Teenagers. College kids. Soccer Moms. NASCAR dads. Healthy senior adults.

Listen to me: This is a damned lie. It’s an evil illusion. You aren’t seeing humanity when you look at such a scrapbook of lies. You are seeing a selection. Models. Ads. Manipulative images to distort for reasons that are never openly stated. We are, sometimes, in places and at times, those beautiful people. But we are the people in the cemeteries, nursing homes, hospitals, homeless shelters, clinics, bars, dirty hotels, filthy restaurants, ghettos, war zones, and a thousand other places that will never show up on your church website picture page unless its some glimpse of a teenager handing a donated t-shirt to a cute urchin on a mission trip. We are the fat people, the people on walkers, the people in dirty clothes, the ugly people, the people who are afraid. We are the good, the bad, the ugly, the lost, the distressed, the unpicturable, the invisible, the forgotten, the lovely, the immoral, and the almost dead.”

I think our true humanity is most visible in the difficult moments of our life. We find out who we really are, what we really care about, what our real priorities are. And when we glimpse this true humanity, we see the reflection of God. God made us in His likeness and I believe that the likeness is most visible when all the veniers are removed and we’re caught in our most vulnerable, most human form.

That’s why I like to see a good tragedy. I like to see the face of God.

In San Francisco yesteday a woman threw her 3 children, ages 6, 3 and 1, off a pier into the bay. What strikes me about the story is that NOBODY DID ANYTHING!?! They’ve got tons of quotes from tons of people who were all shocked and horrified having seen this happen. Besides the one guy who called 911, why weren’t there 4 stories about guys who jumped in the water or just as important, restraining the woman after she threw the first one in.

I know this pier, I’ve walked by it numerous times. It has a large railing and there is nothing about it that would make anyone think that jumping in the water is a normal thing. The water is 10-15 feet below the level of the dock, maybe as much as 20-25 from the railing to water at low tide. There is no nearby beaches and all the surrounding piers are industrial in nature. Additionally, it is a very busy place. Just as the article suggests, there are LOTS of people there on a regular basis, particularly at 5:30 PM in the evening as many people take a stroll down there after work. I suspect there were 10, maybe 20 people who were close enough to make a difference in stopping her and 50 people close enough to make a reasonable attempt at jumping in the water.

Point being, you can’t do this without raising enough eyebrows well before she could be stopped from at least throwing the third kid in. Add that to the fact that jumping the railing to go after the kids would have been my first instinct and I’m just amazed at the lack of a response. Waiting for the police is not a reasonable option when 3 naked kids who likely couldn’t swim were thrown in the 60 degree water.

Just mind boggling.

I’ve said for a LONG time that allowing indian gambling was a bad thing for California. More importantly I’ve said for the same period of time that indian gambling has nothing to do with “Native American Self Reliance” and everything to do with greed and a desired monopoly on gambling.

Well, it’s becoming more and more clear how right I am/was. Case in point, measure G on the ballot in Yuba county (that’s north of Sacramento for those not familiar with the intricacies of California geography). Measure G would give public support for a indian casino in the county at a defined location off of highway 65. Guess who the major financial supporter of the ‘No on G’ campaign is? If you guessed the indian casino about 30 miles down highway 65 in the Sacramento area called Thunder Valley, you’d be right!

See it’s not about “self reliance for all native americans”. If it was, the Thunder Valley folks would be happy to see another casino join in the mix so that they too could be “self reliant”. No, it’s about greed and the Thunder Valley folks, now that they’ve got their cash cow rolling, are willing to protect in whatever way necessary their cash cow.

See this article for the needed references.

It’s pretty simple son:

1. You can’t play the game until after you’re drafted and make it through the opening day ceremonies.
2. You can’t practice by yourself.
3. You can’t watch other teams play (or practice for that matter).
4. There are no trades or free agency; you must be on the same team your whole life.
5. You can’t play the game if the umpires won’t let you score.

Pretty simple, yes?

California politics just isn’t getting much press right now. But just in case my handful of readers missed it, the governor vetoed the illegal immigrants drivers license bill. From the article, I actually have sympathy for the bill’s author Gil Cedillo. Schwarzenegger could have been a lot more clear that he was going to veto the bill no matter what provisions were put in it. Instead he kept listing provisions he might be willing to sign a bill with and Cedillo kept adding those provisions to get the bill through.

Nevertheless, I’m glad this bill didn’t pass.