I'm the godmother. How lucky am I?

Those of you who know me know that I am the godmother of 3, but this is a montage of just my godson. It chronicles Quinton's first few months outside the womb. The beautiful lady is my bestest friend Rochelle- and the tall, handsome lad is her husband of 9 years, Quinton, and the beautiful young lady is her baby sister, Justice. There are also aunties and grandparents (and grandpa Quinton, too- It's a family name :) and all sorts of other admirers.

The pictures include birth, dedication, and a lot from the best Christmas ever at my parent's house. I had all of my godchildren in the same place. It was perfect. There is one picture of me and all my godchildren around 3:37 in the video.

Make photo slide shows at www.OneTrueMedia.com

Remind you of anyone...

In 536 BC Daniel prophesied about Antiochus IV, a Syrian tyrant who ruled between 175-164 BC. But demonstrating Solomon's adage that there is nothing new under the sun, Antiochus sounds strangely like a modern-day ruler...

The next to come to power will be a despicable man who is not directly in line for royal succession. But he will slip in when least expected and take over the kingdom by flattery and intrigue....

By making deceitful promises, he will make various alliances. With a mere handful of followers, he will become strong.

Without warning he will enter the richest areas of the land and do something that none of his predecessors ever did – distribute among his followers the plunder and wealth of the rich....

But he will vent his anger against the people of the holy covenant and reward those who forsake the covenant....

He will flatter those who have violated the covenant and win them over to his side. But the people who know their God will be strong and will resist him....

And some of the wise will fall victim to persecution. In this way, they will be refined and cleansed and made pure until the time of the end, for the appointed time is still to come.

~ Daniel 11:21,23,24,29b,32,33,35, New Living Translation

From Jill Stanek.

De-Baptism. A New Way Atheists Admit There Is a God.

I just stumbled across an article declaring that Britons are "de-baptizing" themselves with a piece of parchment.

To point out the obvious, the act of having oneself de-baptized (as if it's possible) is the ultimate acknowledgement of the power of baptism! Intofor, it's an acknowledgement of God- since any power inherent in baptism only exists because of God. In fact, it's the connection to God they are protesting. If baptism symbolically conferred simple well-wishes for a happy life, then the supposed need to renounce it via parchment wouldn't exist.

Do atheists renounce every shower? How is baptism different, if you truly beleive there is no God? I know if I beleived that there was no God, my baptism would be the equivilent of being splashed with water by a passing car. No God=No Baptism, No need for the effort to renounce it.

If I had been a part of a ceremony at birth that rubbed money on my feet believing that it would bring me prosperity- I wouldn't take any effort to renounce it now because it is powerless superstition. However, if I had been in some voodoo rite as an infant, I'd seek out every spiritual weapon I could find to cleanse me of that, since I acknowledge the power of the devil (since I recognize the power of God, from whence the enemy's power came). Bottom line: you act in accordance with your beleifs, and the debaptism is another way of acknowledging these individuals' belief in the power of God.

I am sure there are those that truly do not beleive in God, and the logical conclusion would be that they carry on with their lives rather than making the absence of a belief the core of their being. Those who emphasize their atheism as a defining characteristic are almost assuredly just running from God. I do recognize that it takes continual effort to deny the obvious: birds, trees, the uniqueness of one's fingerprint. I'm sure this constantly challenges the athiest, as well it should.

But buying a piece of paper that says that they are no longer baptized? On what authority? They recognize the power behind the baptism under the authority of God (in deed, not in word), so under what power are they de-baptized? I can write a sticky note for them that says this. Would that count? Hey, while I'm at it, I can write a declaration that they are actually hybrid alien/humans who breathe fire! Would that count? Oh, wait...it has to be on parchment. That's what it is.

It's the principle of the thang...

I hate it when men tell me how I can get in touch with them! Hate it, hate it. Used to be it was, "Here's my card." and now it's "Add me on Facebook." Ummm, no. You add ME on Facebook. And if you wanted to talk to me, you'd ask for my card.

I'm not offended that these men don't want me enough to put the minimal effort in- I'm offended that they should expect any effort from me at all. How presumptuous!

Even those that are really, really into me pull this role reversal crap. I dated a guy six months that would say, when we'd part, "Give me a call sometime." I would growl each time at the beginning and say- "Or you could call me?" And he did. Because he really liked me. But even after 6 months, 6 months of relationship that got so practical as calling 3-4 times a day for stuff like, "Hey, could you bring from paper towels with you tonight?" and "What time is the movie?" where it is not implied that I will call him for something, but part of our daily lives and still, AND STILL, "Give me a call sometime." I wanted to stab him everytime he said that. It just reminded me of my Egyptian ex-boyfriend of 3 years who didn't like to commit to anything, even dinner plans. He'd say, "In Sha Allah" meaning, "God willing," a cultural way of saying, "Maybe."

So I'd say, "You'll be over at 3:00" and he'd say, "In Sha Allah, 3:00" which meant, "3:30." Or "We going hiking this weekend?"

"In Sha Allah." Grrrrr...

Wow, that devolved. This was originally about guys insulting me by assuming that I will do their job and turned into an impertinent anecdote about the ex.

Back to my point: I am not gonna call you. I won't find you on the interwebs. Any implication that I should will result in me thinking twice about responding to you when you call or find ME.

My Girl Crush...

I was going to blog about something of great social and political import but decided to take a break instead.

So I give you Anjelah Johnson, my girl crush. She's hilarious.

The Injustices of Pre-Marital Sex, Part II

As I prepare a presentation on my abstinence education program theories, I anticipate the backlash that comes with expressing something counter-cultural. I am reminded of one person that claimed, in the age of countless birth control chemicals and devices, that someone like me who abstains for the sake of their children must be extremely "risk-averse."

My response is this: Who am I to take risks with other people's lives?

The man that accused me of being risk-averse also aborted 2 out of 4 of his children. I'm sure many people would take more risks if they new the consequences could be passed on to someone else. For example, if I could rob a bank knowing that someone else would serve my prison sentence, I might be more apt to take the money and run. Unless, of course, I'm a decent human being.

That's essentially what women do when they say that the small chance of pregnancy they risk when using birth control somehow justifies taking a risk with the lives of their children. Yes, the odds are smaller that you will conceive a child when you are loaded with hormones and chemicals (some actually abort the child pre-implantation), but that 3-6% chance is still the life of a child. Yet, somehow, people will take risks with their children that they wouldn't take with themselves. It's much like in-vitro fertilization for those who desperately want to bear a child: If the odds of you dying were the same as the children you create in a petri-dish, would you still take that chance? I'd venture to say that many people weeping over their infertility, willing to create and watch die dozens of children in hopes of giving birth to one, if they risked the 80% chance of dying they impose on their children- I'd bet they'd change their minds.

So, yes, even a 1% chance is too large to take with my children's entire lives and futures.

I gamble 100% with my own life and future on a daily basis: because I don't have children. Throwing everything I have behind my self-employment venture is a risk I can take. At any given moment, everything I've worked for is on the line- and the returns are astouding. Case in point: I now make 3 times the money I ever did before- and I only work 15 hours a week. This was an excellent gamble, but one I might not have taken unless I could isolate my children from the consequences. Risk-averse? Me? Only when those who can't advocate or care for themselves are the ones at risk.

Besides, all the chemicals and devices in the world can't shield a woman from the diseases she exposes herself to when she chooses to have sex outside of marriage. Some cause infertility, others lead to cervical cancer, and even others lead to death. I can guarentee that no woman thinks, when popping her once-daily Valtrex, "Man, that sex was worth it!" Anyone crying in her nursery because she just realized that her capacity to bear a child was stolen from a disease she gave herself- also doubt such women would stand behind their lifestyle choice.

It's basic cost-benefit analysis here: why expose yourself and your future spouse (the one you truly love enough to commit to a lifetime together) to a host of completely avoidable afflictions- especially since you can have a lifetime of blissful sexual intimacy without any of these consequences? When marriage affords all the benefits of sex, only without the deadly viruses and painful blisters, why is that not worth waiting for? The cost of sex before marriage, to everyone, outweigh the benefits.

Beyond the protection of children from the injustices of pre-marital sex, there is also the bottom-line realization that this practice is simply dangerous and foolish. Even if there were not the potential for children to be harmed, their is an overwhelming chance for YOU to be harmed- for your future spouse to be harmed as well. It's simply not worth it. While my friends who exercised wisdom before they were married and brought into the marriage bed nothing but themselves- these people are ridiculed, can not anyone see how infinitely better off they are? Even those who narrowly escaped broken hearts and broken skin from their pre-marital escapades have baggage from it nonetheless- not them. Not me.

This is another entry altogether, but pre-marital sex makes my top 3 lists of dumbest crap women do for some of the aforementioned reasons. But we'll stop here, and I'll ask people who have this lifestyle and have been forced to justify it, to grant me one reason why sex is ever worth the risk, especially when it can be had without any of these maladies. One reason, any reason- throw it out there! I'm listening.

A to the D to the other D.

Night before last I was at my best friend's house playing with my godson. Her husband is completing his training to teach at an online university, to supplement the teaching he currently does in the traditional classroom. We all cramped around the computer screen editting his latest set of responses to his homework, when we all laughed at the fact that we were scrambling to accomplish this right before the midnight deadline.

Present in that huddle was a doctor, and two women with master's degrees, one of which is nearly ABD on her doctorate. In that 3 foot radius of three people, were nearly 8 degrees, 5 of which were advanced degrees. And we represent 3 cases of certified Attention Deficit Disorder.

And then it hit me: If it ain't broke...

Apparently, we're okay. Maybe we muddled through our educations and need sticky-notes all over the place in order to continue succeeding in our careers, but the bottom line is this simple: We got the education. We succeed in our careers. Maybe there is an easier, prettier way, but our way is working for us.

See, I rally against my nature, trying to make myself focus for hours on end, all the while knowing that what needs to happen will only happen right before it absolutely has to happen. Miraculously, when I need 12 hours to complete a project, I start 12 hours before it's due. When I need 8 hours, I can finally focus 8 hours before its due. This doesn't mean that I didn't spend 48 hours beforehand trying to focus, it just means that whatever I need only kicks in at just the right time.

I want, I really WANT to get things done by can't focus unless I have a deadline that compels me to, something on the line that supersedes my desire to focus and switches on my survival mechanism. I watched and bemoan the clock ticking away while I try to focus, but rest in the fact that it will get done. It always has.

I'm not going to act like this doesn't suck. It totally does. I'm trying to retrain myself not to become anxious at the clock or waste time trying to focus when 28 years of experience has suggested to me that this is just not gonna happen. I have started shopping rather than blankly staring at a screen, lying in my hammock, taking a nap...but the guilt that says that I should be fighting the futile fight steals my free time. If I can just get rid of the guilt, I would have a pretty good thing going...

I shudder and squeeze my Daisy close...

"Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants." -PETA President Ingrid Newkirk

Recently banned from the Superbowl for a virtually pornographic ad, much like its previous exploitation of women, I googled PETA and found this quote on Wikipedia. PETA doesn't hide the fact that it kills virtually all of the animals placed in its custody, but as the mother of two animals that PETA would have euthanized on the spot, I shudder to think of the evil they do in the name of mercy.

Here are some pictures of my old, disabled, used and beaten puppy mill dog- who by all standards would have been killed instantly. Her own salvation was the fact that she was dumped rather than taken to the pound (the cruel owners didn't want to be discovered by taking her somewhere to be euthanized once she got to old to breed). If PETA got there hands on Daisy Lou, she'd be dead. And what a huge disservice and injustice to humanity! I shudder to imagine a Daisy-free world.

Why I posted this is because I love with all I am one of those "animals who no one wants." How the %^&$ does Ingrid know what animals are wanted and those who are unwanted when she doesn't give them a chance? I wanted Daisy for 7 years before I found and adopted her, but Ingrid would have killed her. My sister is also in love with a golden retriever that Ingrid would have personally given a lethal injection.

Like people advocate abortion for supposably "unwanted children," never giving them a chance to be in the arms of people who likewise want them beyond comprehension, PETA advocates a pre-emptive strike against these animals.

Here are some pictures of my "unwanted" furry angel. Look at this face and tell me if she would have prefered a "peaceful and painless death" to being adored and doted over by me and everyone she meets. I can confidently say that Daisy would tell Ingrid to kiss her multi-colored waggedy ass.