That’s a question some may be asking if certain scientists are able to achieve the latest subversion of human sexuality.
GET THE STORY (WARNING: Clinical terminology for human reproductive cells, as well as conceptual grossness.)
CHT to the reader who e-mailed.
Ash Wednesday!
You guessed right!
And since tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, be sure to beef up (no pun intended) on all the must-know Lent information by reading up on it in the
ANNUAL LENT FIGHT.
An interesting post over at New Scientist’s Short Sharp Science blog reveals something interesting:
Rasa Karapandza and Milos Bozovic of Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, Spain, first analysed the 10-K reports produced by 100 companies between 1993 and 2003.
They found that the reports that focused more on the future – using the terms "will", "shall" and "going to" – tended to do worse, performance-wise, over the coming year. Perhaps it isn’t all that surprising, since companies faring badly may tend to focus more on the future to direct attention away from current woes.
But, more strikingly, the pair did the same thing for presidential debates from 1960 to 2000 and found a very similar pattern. Again, the candidate who focused most on the future did worse on polling day. It wouldn’t be so surprising if the incumbent candidate always won, because they might tend to talk less about the future than about their recent record. But the pattern held true for both incumbents and newcomers.
Something in me says this is related to the phenomenon of successful politicians making only few and fuzzy campaign promises, lest they be held accountable for them later. Yet . . . this is supposed to hold true before a candidate is elected president, and regardless of whether he’s running for a second term. So maybe the connection is somewhat indirect: Perhaps successful candidates learn early on in their careers not to talk too much about the future and it’s part of the overall package of being a good politician–the overall package being what helps them win presidential elections, not just the don’t-talk-about-tomorrow part.
I don’t know if the results of the above study are dependable–or how dependable they are–but if the pattern holds in the current election cycle, then this piece of information is interesting:
A transcript of a Republican debate held on 30 January showed that "will", "shall" or "going to" were used 26 times by McCain, 27 times by Huckabee and 32 times by Romney, suggesting that McCain should ultimately win the candidacy.
And, a transcript of a democratic debate held the following day reveals that "will", "shall" or "going to" were used 70 times by Clinton and 71 times Obama, meaning Clinton should eventually win by a nose.
I don’t know about the relative levels of futurism among the candidates in each party, but not the discrepancy between the two parties.
Time will tell.
Another from Old World Swine;
I remember the first time I sat in a figure drawing class and worked
from a real, live, nekkid model. I was a little nervous before, as were
probably a lot of us wet-eared art undergrads. I don’t know how
everyone else responded when the young lady dropped her bathrobe, but I
expect their experience wasn’t too different from my own; there were a
few moments of awkward ogling, a few moments of stern and studied
pretense at ignoring the obvious, and then – something else. I began to
think about how I could wring a good drawing out of the pose. As I
started to draw, my brain began to break the model down into her
component elements… line and form, light and shadow, muscle and bone.
Within a minute, and for the remainder of the class, she registered no
more on my libido-meter than a clay pot or a fern. And I was not nearly
such a paragon of virtue and restraint as I am now.
Not everyone has had the benefit of such a class, of course, but it
did demonstrate to me in unmistakable terms the very real difference
between appreciating the beauty of the human form and what might be
called the Look of Lust. I had the great privilege of having my view of
the female form somewhat redeemed and baptized long before I knew
anything of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. In this work, he makes
brilliantly clear that the mere repression of lustful thoughts is not
enough, and may even be unhealthy in the long run. We must learn –
through the help of the Holy Spirit, the teaching of the Church, the
sacraments and prayer – to change the way we perceive the human body.
We must have our thoughts redeemed. We should work toward being able to
thank God for the breathtaking beauty of the human body, and through
giving thanks and praise to the Creator, disarm and disable Lust.
The idea is not to cage our lust, but to drag it out into the light where it can be transformed by the Holy Spirit.
Not that nudity is something to be treated lightly. We are fallen,
after all. There is nudity – even under the pretext of art – that is
wholly inappropriate. If it is intended to excite lust, or if it in
fact does so, then it is unhealthy.
How do we tell the difference? Obviously, this is a matter of
judgment. For one aware of his own weakness, one sincerely committed to
trying to please God in everything, one familiar with Original Sin, one
who has been trained to respect the dictates of conscience… a
certain amount of confidence in personal judgment is possible, and can
be developed. In the words of St. Augustine, "Love God and do as you
please".
For one lacking these things, it may be impossible, though I believe
that even based only on natural law one can tell the difference between
a painting that is basically an act of praise and homage, and one in
which the body is displayed like a piece of meat in a butcher shop
window. In the first case, the viewer’s response is "Yes, that is
beautiful – God does great work". In the latter case, the viewer’s
response is "I want that".
In short, if you are truly concerned about lust in regard to viewing
nude figures in art, then the battle is half won already. Trust your
judgment, and be watchful of your own thoughts. Where truly great,
classical, historically significant art is involved, I don’t think even
children need be cocooned and shielded as much as one might think.
Most children likely have a much saner and simpler response to these
things than we give them credit for. If you have concerns for kids,
look things over for yourself first, but don’t get too wound up over
them seeing this or that body part, in the right context.
Like everybody else, I’ve been following reports that the economy is bad, that we may already be in a recession–or worse–and it has me concerned.
I *really* don’t want that to be the case, but I have to face the possibility that it is.
On the other hand, I’ve been hearing reports for the last five years about how bad the economy has been, when in fact we’ve been in a period of economic growth for the last five years.
So . . . what’s the deal?
Was it just the media wanting a scare story all this time leading them to sensationalize any possible negative number when in fact the economy was fine? Was it hatred of the Bush administration? And what does this say about current reports of a recession–or worse?
I dunno.
I *especially* hope that all the negative talk doesn’t lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So I at least like to hear both sides of a story before forming an opinion, and thus I was intrigued to read THIS STORY IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
Pardon the pun, but here are the "money" quotes (excerpts):
It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble.
It is most likely that this recent weakness is a payback for previous strength.
A year ago, most economic data looked much worse than they do today. . . . But the economy came back and roared in the middle of the year.
Because all debt rests on a foundation of real economic activity, and the real economy is still resilient, the current red alert about a crashing house of cards looks like another false alarm.
So is the current talk just talk . . . or something more?
I dunno.
I report. You decide.
From my blog, Old World Swine;
Remember, January 25th is Burns Night!
I pray our government will lift this ban
on Haggis before a corrupt and violent black market has a chance to
develop. Haggis smuggling would have to be a dirty business.
In honor of those who march today…
"I doubt if anyone of any tenderness or
imagination can see the hand of a child and not be a little frightened of it.
It is awful to think of the essential human energy moving so tiny a thing; it
is like imagining that human nature could live in the wing of a butterfly or the
leaf of a tree. When we look upon lives so human and yet so small. . . we feel
the same kind of obligation to these creatures that [God] might feel. . ."
from Chesterton’s essay In Defense of Baby Worship
from The Defendant 1903.
For more, visit the Catholic Education Resource Center
(http://www.catholiceducation.org/)
Catholic Answers has been doing cruises for a number of years now, and they’ve proved very popular. They provide a valuable experience for the participants, and the proceeds benefit the apostolic work of Catholic Answers.
This June we’re going to be doing a cruise to Alaska, which is going to be a lot of fun. The theme of the cruise is apologetics, and we’ll be having apologetic talks by me, Tim Staples, Mark Shea, and Jim Blackburn.
We’ll also be getting to see the natural beauty of Alaska in the summer, which is truly stunning. I was on our previous Alaska cruise, and I remember when we arrived at our first port of call and I got off the boat. The port village was tiny, but the mountain behind it was enormous–thousands of feet tall, covered with evergreens, with water falls high up its slopes. The water falls looked tiny in the distance, which just added to the sense of enormity.
We also cruised past fjords, which I’ve always felt give a lovely baroque feel to a continent, and got to climb on a glacier, as well as a bunch of other activities.
And now we’re going to do it again.
It’ll be great!
So I thought I’d write a post about it and invite readers who might want to come along to do so. I know that some readers have been with us on previous cruises, and this one will be a lot of fun.
Fun is important.
It’s a key part of the human experience. God meant us to have it. But he also meant us to have it in a wholesome, constructive way. That’s one of the things that makes Catholic cruises such excellent vacations. They combine the human need for rest and recreation with the spiritual dimension that must always be fundamental to our lives.
Shortly after he was elected pontiff, Pope Benedict spoke of these two dimensions combining in the ideal of the Christian vacation, while he was taking his own vacation in the Alps (and writing his book on Jesus):
In the world in which we live, the need to be physically and mentally
replenished has become as it were essential, especially to those who
dwell in cities where the often frenzied pace of life leaves little
room for silence, reflection and relaxing contact with nature.
Moreover, holidays are days on which we can give even more time to
prayer, reading and meditation on the profound meaning of life in the
peaceful context of our own family and loved ones.The vacation period
affords unique opportunities for reflection as we face the stirring
views of nature, a marvelous "book" within the reach of everyone,
adults or children. In contact with nature, individuals rediscover
their proper dimension, they recognize that they are creatures but at
the same time unique, "capable of God" since they are inwardly open to
the Infinite. Driven by the heartfelt need for meaning that urges them
onwards, they perceive the mark of goodness and divine Providence in
the world that surrounds them and open themselves almost spontaneously
to praise and prayer [SOURCE].
A Catholic cruise to Alaska offers precisely the kind of encounter with nature and spiritual experience that Pope Benedict is talking about, as not only will there be the grandeur of Alaska’s God-given beauty but also faith-building talks, daily Mass, confession, and travel with like-minded Catholics in an enriching, family-friendly environment.
Whether you’ve never been on a cruise before or whether you’re an experienced cruiser, I hope you’ll consider joining me on the 2008 Catholic Answers apologetics cruise to Alaska.
For more information, click the icon in the right hand margin or VISIT THIS SITE.
That’s the headline of THIS STORY BY CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY.
I’m no Harry Potter fan, but it appears that Catholic News Agency has severely misled its readers on this story.
By saying that L’Osservatore Romano published a piece criticizing Harry Potter, they convey the impression that this is the official Vatican position.
In actuality, what L’Osservatore Romano published was a debate between pro-Potter and anti-Potter writers, which conveys an entirely different impression about the newspaper’s (and the Vatican’s) position.
Catholic News Agency mentioned only one half of the debate.
Catholic News Service, by contrast, mentions both.